Bitmain E3 Ethash Miner ASIC (Batch 1 - Shipping:16-31 July. $800 USD)

[Longsnowsm]

Ok, so who else is a little pissed off at Bitevil for offering now Batch 3... all 3 batches with the exact same ship date as Batch 1?  What kind of nonsense is this out of Bitmain? 

They even going to try and pretend they are looking out for customers?  You know, like offer a batch, there is a delay in time, before the next batch is supposed to be shipped... and so forth...  What a CROCK! 

Any anyone who is buying these just keep that in mind, they are dog piling more and more miners out the door after yours is paid at a higher price with the exact same ship dates... You paid a premium for your batch and each subsequent batches the price decreases.... but we are all are going to get them the same time you will get yours.... Let that soak in for a few...    You might as well wait for Batch 77, the price will be $200 and it will still ship the same date...

[madmartyk]

Looks like every time there is a price change it's a new batch number.

[NoIdeaAsWell]

Ok, so who else is a little pissed off at Bitevil for offering now Batch 3... all 3 batches with the exact same ship date as Batch 1?  What kind of nonsense is this out of Bitmain?  

They even going to try and pretend they are looking out for customers?  You know, like offer a batch, there is a delay in time, before the next batch is supposed to be shipped... and so forth...  What a CROCK!  

Any anyone who is buying these just keep that in mind, they are dog piling more and more miners out the door after yours is paid at a higher price with the exact same ship dates... You paid a premium for your batch and each subsequent batches the price decreases.... but we are all are going to get them the same time you will get yours.... Let that soak in for a few...    You might as well wait for Batch 77, the price will be $200 and it will still ship the same date...

Except this is NOT what happened with the E3

First batch was - $800

Second bath was $2150 or was it $2050 from memory
Batch 3 - $1876

Yes same shipping date so thats a bit shit.

[shaninium]

Ok, so who else is a little pissed off at Bitevil for offering now Batch 3... all 3 batches with the exact same ship date as Batch 1?  What kind of nonsense is this out of Bitmain?  

They even going to try and pretend they are looking out for customers?  You know, like offer a batch, there is a delay in time, before the next batch is supposed to be shipped... and so forth...  What a CROCK!  

Any anyone who is buying these just keep that in mind, they are dog piling more and more miners out the door after yours is paid at a higher price with the exact same ship dates... You paid a premium for your batch and each subsequent batches the price decreases.... but we are all are going to get them the same time you will get yours.... Let that soak in for a few...    You might as well wait for Batch 77, the price will be $200 and it will still ship the same date...

Except this is NOT what happened with the E3

First batch was - $800

Second bath was $2150 or was it $2050 from memory
Batch 3 - $1876

Yes same shipping date so thats a bit shit.

Its all the same batch prob, it never sold out, they just change the price, each "batch" is just a small part of the physical batch they intended to sell. They have to change the price cause eth price changes and fork never happened, also noone seems to want them.

[smaxz]

guys its not a conspiracy, they change the price according to the value of the coin.

if the crypto the coin mined decreased in value or there was a drastic mining difficulty jumps, the cost of the unit is ajusted to compensate.

[greyday]

guys its not a conspiracy, they change the price according to the value of the coin.

if the crypto the coin mined decreased in value or there was a drastic mining difficulty jumps, the cost of the unit is ajusted to compensate.

This.

Except for the initial $800 offering, that was based on the assumption ETH would fork. When they announced they wouldn't, the price basically tripled (2.5ish, really, but still).

[BenRickert]

guys its not a conspiracy, they change the price according to the value of the coin.

if the crypto the coin mined decreased in value or there was a drastic mining difficulty jumps, the cost of the unit is ajusted to compensate.

It’s not adjusted to “compensate”, it’s adjusted because otherwise they won’t sell any units. It’s based on time it takes to mine back your initial outlay for the cost of the miner. Plain and simple. Bottom line is, Bitmain makes the best profit in mining the units when there is fat meat on the bone. When they have sucked all that gravy from the networks, they turn and sell them to us so we can happily pick up their crumbs and leftovers. For some of thats OK. You just have to be careful of what you buy and how much you pay. I haven’t bought a Bitmain miner since December because you could see this shitstorm brewing. Well...if you were paying attention you could.

[Longsnowsm]

If it is just a price adjustment then why call it batch 2, or batch 3?  If they are in fact new batches that is a load of garbage that they are shipping all the same date.  Othewise it would seem to be pretty poor choice to call the new prices a "batch".

[sjyi]

...
Hardware is infinitely more flexible than Software in these coins. The Hardware manufacturers can adjust their specs to circumvent these forks fairly quickly.
...

Due to the nature of the beast, hardware can NOT be more flexible than software.  Granted some of the system/network issues associated with hard-forking a coin needs to be considered carefully within the software.  But the system considerations are not the indications of inflexibility of software.  Sure, the design cycle of ASIC is becoming much shorter but the inherent inflexibility of hardware hasn't disappeared.  If the hardware is that much more flexible than software, why not just implement the entire aspects of coin in hardware?

[BenRickert]

...
Hardware is infinitely more flexible than Software in these coins. The Hardware manufacturers can adjust their specs to circumvent these forks fairly quickly.
...

Due to the nature of the beast, hardware can NOT be more flexible than software.  Granted some of the system/network issues associated with hard-forking a coin needs to be considered carefully within the software.  But the system considerations are not the indications of inflexibility of software.  Sure, the design cycle of ASIC is becoming much shorter but the inherent inflexibility of hardware hasn't disappeared.  If the hardware is that much more flexible than software, why not just implement the entire aspects of coin in hardware?

Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.

[jmigdlc99]

Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.

This is a separate topic on it's own but i would pick the former, software developer, any time. It's simply much more profitable to do so.

Imagine how much power and money Vitalik has, with a click of his fingers he could influence the entire ETH dev team to fork and destroy the E3. He could also short and destroy mining or the entire ETH network by uploading some bad code. He knows exactly when updates are going to happen beforehand and could even use this opportunity to buy ETH before it pumps. It is so profitable to be Vitalik Buterin.

[hungtrung]

 thats literally just a GPU rig. one of my rigs is the same MH and power draw.

and i can actually use it for something else or sell the components.

[Fantamaz]

Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.

This is a separate topic on it's own but i would pick the former, software developer, any time. It's simply much more profitable to do so.

Imagine how much power and money Vitalik has, with a click of his fingers he could influence the entire ETH dev team to fork and destroy the E3. He could also short and destroy mining or the entire ETH network by uploading some bad code. He knows exactly when updates are going to happen beforehand and could even use this opportunity to buy ETH before it pumps. It is so profitable to be Vitalik Buterin.

lol

[BenRickert]

Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.

This is a separate topic on it's own but i would pick the former, software developer, any time. It's simply much more profitable to do so.

Imagine how much power and money Vitalik has, with a click of his fingers he could influence the entire ETH dev team to fork and destroy the E3. He could also short and destroy mining or the entire ETH network by uploading some bad code. He knows exactly when updates are going to happen beforehand and could even use this opportunity to buy ETH before it pumps. It is so profitable to be Vitalik Buterin.

This is a completely different scope than what we are referring to. The topic at hand is the reactive response by Software Engineers to ASIC's coming onto their pre-existing networks. Then, once they react one time, the ASIC manufacturers can just reprogram to the new "resistant" software. ASIC = Offense, Software Engineer is on defensive. Besides, they have to take the entire protocol and the users into account before constantly changing the program. It's just not as easy as it sounds. ASIC offensive redesigns are fairly simple and fast. Eventually if a team mishandles the changing of programs to circumvent ASIC, they run a very real risk of losing their Coin to the fork and to the ASIC community.

I think you can agree that Buterin or "little dracula" or whatever his name is... is quite the exception and not the rule.

[sjyi]

Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.

This is a separate topic on it's own but i would pick the former, software developer, any time. It's simply much more profitable to do so.

Imagine how much power and money Vitalik has, with a click of his fingers he could influence the entire ETH dev team to fork and destroy the E3. He could also short and destroy mining or the entire ETH network by uploading some bad code. He knows exactly when updates are going to happen beforehand and could even use this opportunity to buy ETH before it pumps. It is so profitable to be Vitalik Buterin.

This is a completely different scope than what we are referring to. The topic at hand is the reactive response by Software Engineers to ASIC's coming onto their pre-existing networks. Then, once they react one time, the ASIC manufacturers can just reprogram to the new "resistant" software. ASIC = Offense, Software Engineer is on defensive. Besides, they have to take the entire protocol and the users into account before constantly changing the program. It's just not as easy as it sounds. ASIC offensive redesigns are fairly simple and fast. Eventually if a team mishandles the changing of programs to circumvent ASIC, they run a very real risk of losing their Coin to the fork and to the ASIC community.

I think you can agree that Buterin or "little dracula" or whatever his name is... is quite the exception and not the rule.

Chicken or the egg?
For Ethereum the software came first and ASIC is only now catching up.  So when software changes the mining requirement the ASIC will need to catch up.  But if that cycle keeps on repeating, does it even matter which is the cause and which is the effect of the latest revision?  Each change becomes the effect of the previous cycle and the cause for the next cycle.

[BenRickert]

Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.

This is a separate topic on it's own but i would pick the former, software developer, any time. It's simply much more profitable to do so.

Imagine how much power and money Vitalik has, with a click of his fingers he could influence the entire ETH dev team to fork and destroy the E3. He could also short and destroy mining or the entire ETH network by uploading some bad code. He knows exactly when updates are going to happen beforehand and could even use this opportunity to buy ETH before it pumps. It is so profitable to be Vitalik Buterin.

This is a completely different scope than what we are referring to. The topic at hand is the reactive response by Software Engineers to ASIC's coming onto their pre-existing networks. Then, once they react one time, the ASIC manufacturers can just reprogram to the new "resistant" software. ASIC = Offense, Software Engineer is on defensive. Besides, they have to take the entire protocol and the users into account before constantly changing the program. It's just not as easy as it sounds. ASIC offensive redesigns are fairly simple and fast. Eventually if a team mishandles the changing of programs to circumvent ASIC, they run a very real risk of losing their Coin to the fork and to the ASIC community.

I think you can agree that Buterin or "little dracula" or whatever his name is... is quite the exception and not the rule.

Chicken or the egg?
For Ethereum the software came first and ASIC is only now catching up.  So when software changes the mining requirement the ASIC will need to catch up.  But if that cycle keeps on repeating, does it even matter which is the cause and which is the effect of the latest revision?  Each change becomes the effect of the previous cycle and the cause for the next cycle.

Jesus....you people just don't get it. Changing the HARDWARE does not put the protocol at risk of dilution or being taken from the hardware manufacturer. They risk nothing. What the fuck do you think is going to happen to ANY coin if it has to rewrite it's software and or FORK every time an ASIC manufacturer builds a unit to mine it? In answer to the other myopic twit's imbecilic post about the Great and Powerfull Count Chokula Buterin. Bitmain made 4 Billion dollars last year. How much did that Omnipotent Developer make? You think he can change ETH with the flick of his wrist or a push of a button?!?!?! LMGDAO!! He can't do SHIT. That's why he's been jerking off to POS articles for the last 1.5 years but can't do anything about changing it. 1.5 years to have a BETA version of Casper. yeah....just a snap of the fingers. Just read this article and learn something. Stop posting this schoolyard bullshit.    https://blog.sia.tech/the-state-of-cryptocurrency-mining-538004a37f9b

[Sandal_Hat]

If they sell enough to crash eth mining. It will crash gpu mining.

[Yasmonsan]

If they sell enough to crash eth mining. It will crash gpu mining.

Why would they sell to crash gpu mining?

[shaninium]

If they sell enough to crash eth mining. It will crash gpu mining.

Why would they sell to crash gpu mining?

This is one thing bitmain wont make a huge dint in, unless they sold a massive amount at $800, which i doubt, these arent selling out , with good reason. Its more likely the equilhash miners will crash gpu mining.

[Longsnowsm]

If they sell enough to crash eth mining. It will crash gpu mining.

The E3 isn't really any more efficient than the GPU miners so I don't see how these units will make any impact at all.  Like someone else pointed out there weren't enough of these sold to make a difference.  Run the hash/energy consumption numbers and you will verify for yourself that this is no competitive advantage with the E3.