{BFL} Here's a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK at your Monarch!

[LittleD]

Update from your boy Inabobobobobbobobobo




What you are looking at are plots of performance over a large number of chips. The short version is that at lower voltages, the two chip Monarch & Imperial Monarch operate around .27W/GH @ 400 GH/s and at higher voltages, the Monarch will operate around .55W/GH @ 1 TH/s.

What does that translate to in real world numbers? At our nominal speed for the Monarch, 600 GH/s, power consumption is about .3W/GH at the chip level. We expect it to draw around 235W at the wall. The Monarch can be overclocked to approximately 800 GH/s per chip, or 1.6 TH total per board with specialized cooling. The Imperial Monarch is expected to consume about 550W at the wall at 1 TH/s. The Monarch product line is essentially 3x - 5x more efficient at any comparable hashrate than the competition, which should allow you to run your Monarch for much, much longer than any other bitcoin mining device that exists now or that is even planned for the next generation.

Like our 65nm line, we have the absolute best warranty available, anywhere... We offer this because we know our products are well designed and rock solid. We are still offering a 1 year warranty on our Monarch product line and as such, we are going to be shipping boards we have faith in, so you don't end up with malfunctioning, broken or dead boards on arrival. The Monarch was designed from the start with power efficiency in mind, and is software tunable from very low power consumption at slower speeds to higher power consumption (which is still lower than anyone else) at incredible speeds. As bitcoin prices change and as difficulty climbs, power efficiency will dictate how long you can operate your devices. The Monarch line should continue to be profitable long after every other device costs more to operate than it generates in revenue.

Keep in mind, these numbers are from chip level testing. Full system testing is on going as we speak, so these numbers are still preliminary, but they should be fairly accurate as we have a rather large test sample pool of chips. Once we have a fully armed and operational battlestation Monarch, we will publish the final, confirmed power and hashrate figures.

We are not taking a bit of extra time to make things right lightly... because of the efficiency of the chip and the way it initializes itself, there is a huge current draw on startup, which is necessitating that we add a couple minor components to the board design to facilitate chip initialization. We were not able to test this portion of the board until we had actual functioning chips. These are plentiful parts that we already have in stock and we are having the boards manufactured now. Some of the initial boards will roll off the line at the end of the week with more of them the following week. After the initial boards roll off the line, they will be populated and tested for functionality. Assuming they perform as expected, we will start shipping after all functionality tests are complete.

So when are you shipping? I'm sure that's the question on everyones mind. We plan to begin shipping within the next 10 - 12 days, but that timeline is still in flux as we adjust the board components to best utilize the chips.

 I will provide an update as soon as more information is available.

 Discussion of this update can be found here.

[1714984731]

1714984731

[1714984731]

1714984731

[1714984731]

1714984731

[1714984731]

1714984731

[1714984731]

1714984731

[1714984731]

1714984731

[Zelek Uther]

Where did they get 1.5W/GH for KnCMiner from? Or 1.1 for AntMiner?

My October Jupiter is 1.2W/GH measured at the wall.
My AntMiner S2 is 1.0W/GH measured at the wall.

These are measurements I have made myself from equipment that I own and run.

Is BFL comparing estimated Monarch ASIC chip-level power draw in a low power mode (0.35W/GH), versus an exaggerated total-system draw at the wall for competitors?

Looks impressive on paper, but then I remember my Jalapeño was meant to run solely from a USB port, ie 2.5W, whereas the end product draws 35W (I own one and I measured it myself).

Perhaps we should save the power comparisons until some customers have their units and report back with real world at-the-wall power measurements.

[Gyfts]

Quite nice I must say.

[k9quaint]

Transcript Pages 89-92 of the Probation Hearing against Sonny V. regarding BFL

Q. Okay. And so in both circumstances, of the house and the loan, it was customers' money that went to Mr. Vleisides buying his house that he lives in, and to loan him and other share holders money; right? Because of this prepaid model?

A. It was certainly money that customers deposited, you know, with the company to purchase their products. I'm not entirely sure at which point legal entitlement to the money passes from the customer to the -- to the company. But the -- the money that any company uses, if it's not borrowed or put in by investors comes from its customers. In this case it all came from the customers.

Q. Now, should people who have company credit cards use them for personal expenses?

A. They should not.

Q. All right. And so does that continue on, do you know, by -- by Mr. Vleisides?

A. I -- I will say that it probably has continued.

Q. All right. Are there other employees, in particular Mr. Vleisides' mother, who has a company credit card that makes personal purchases on?

A. There are other company emp -- there are other company employees who -- you know, the only one I've looked at closely is Mr. Vleisides because of this issue. There are other company employees who have company credit cards. I do not know whether Mr. Vleisides' mother has a company credit card.

Right now, Monarchs produce zero hashes per second so their efficiency is undefined.
The question is, will a Monarch actually be produced before Sonny's family spends all the pre-order cash on houses and cars?

Edit: I noted that Josh says they are shipping in 2 weeks... Never gets old. 

[Chopperman]

Edit: I noted that Josh says they are shipping in 2 weeks... Never gets old. 

10-12 days is the new 2 weeks!

I read somewhere that pre-order money cannot be used for day-to-day company expenses, only parts and manufacturing costs for the product that has been pre-purchased.  For a publicly traded company, it needs to go straight into an escrow account and not touched until the product is shipped.   

[LittleD]

Edit: I noted that Josh says they are shipping in 2 weeks... Never gets old. 

10-12 days is the new 2 weeks!

I read somewhere that pre-order money cannot be used for day-to-day company expenses, only parts and manufacturing costs for the product that has been pre-purchased.  For a publicly traded company, it needs to go straight into an escrow account and not touched until the product is shipped.   

You "read"... lol ... please post that article ... you sound pretty sure of this ... you must work at BFL or something

[bobsag3]

Edit: I noted that Josh says they are shipping in 2 weeks... Never gets old. 

10-12 days is the new 2 weeks!

I read somewhere that pre-order money cannot be used for day-to-day company expenses, only parts and manufacturing costs for the product that has been pre-purchased.  For a publicly traded company, it needs to go straight into an escrow account and not touched until the product is shipped.   

BFL is not a publicly traded company.

[Bicknellski]

And when you try and get a refund then have to go to court for compensation these are the excuses this private company is going to use:

Code:

Defendant BF Labs states the following for its affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint:

1. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred as Plaintiffs accepted the terms of their pre-order and
understood that all sales were final and that there was a backlog of orders and production and
delivery of any order may take two months or longer.

2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because BF Labs “FAQ” website states it reserves
“the right to handle refund requests on a case by case basis” and pre-ordered products are nonrefundable
as is clearly stated at the time of purchase.

3. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs understood that deliveries may take
two months or more after order.

4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs expressly agreed to a pre-order
arrangement, knowing delay would be two months or longer and BF Labs was unable to make
any representation regarding the length of delay.

5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred as the products in question are designed and
manufactured in accordance with the standards in the industry.

6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the products in question underwent burn
testing for a minimal amount of time and had not be assigned to a customer order at the time of
the burn testing.

7. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because untested products are not finished goods and
could not be customers’ equipment.

8. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred pursuant to K.S.A. 84-2-501, in that the products in
question were not identified in any contract at the time of the pre-order.

9. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because burn testing was done to warrant the product
as fit and suitable for the purposes for which it is sold.

10. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because BF Labs exercised reasonable care to prevent
and promptly correct any delays that Plaintiffs complains of.

11. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages request cannot be sustained as unconscionable.

12. Each and every claim contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

13. Plaintiffs’ claims for damages are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs
have suffered no damages.

14. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part based on the doctrine of election
of remedies.

15. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by reason of Plaintiffs’ breaches or failures to perform
conditions precedent or subsequent.

16. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred for the reason that any actions or inactions of BF
Labs were economically justified.

17. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by reason of Plaintiffs’ unclean hands.

18. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, which are denied, were caused by intervening and
superseding acts over which BF Labs had no control or right of control, thereby barring or
diminishing Plaintiffs’ alleged right of recovery.

19. The damages claimed by Plaintiffs are not recoverable, in whole or in part, under
Kansas or federal law.

20. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by a prior settlement and/or release of those claims or
are barred to the extent Plaintiffs have entered into an accord and satisfaction or otherwise
compromised their claims.

21. In further answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and by way of Affirmative Defense,
Defendant adopts all Affirmative Defenses available to it under the Kansas Uniform Commercial
Code or any other Uniform Commercial Code enacted by a state whose substantive law controls
in this action.

22. Defendant’s actions were neither the cause in fact nor the proximate cause of
Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any.

23. Defendant is entitled to the benefit of all defenses and presumptions contained in,
or arising from, any product liability act and/or Kansas Uniform Commercial Code.

24. The alleged damages sustained by Plaintiffs were the result of Plaintiffs’ own
comparative fault or any other “fault” pursuant to K.S.A. 60-258a and, accordingly, Plaintiffs are
barred from recovery or limited in their recovery.

25. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of
waiver and estoppel.

26. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of justification.

27. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of ratification.

28. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by all applicable statutes of limitation.

29. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, pursuant to First Amendment of
the United States Constitution and similar applicable state constitutional provisions.

30. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of spoliation and the failure to
properly preserve evidence necessary to the proper and just determination of this action.

31. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent Plaintiffs entered into an accord and
satisfaction or otherwise compromised their claims.

32. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of repudiation and anticipatory
breach.

33. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent Plaintiffs prevented BF Labs from
performing.

34. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred based on Plaintiffs’ rejection of goods, as well as
Plaintiffs’ revocation of acceptance of goods.

35. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of mistake.

36. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any, or otherwise take
reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the damages Plaintiffs claims to have suffered. Plaintiffs
also, once they realized a claim existed, were under an obligation to minimize their alleged loss,
if any. As a result, any recovery against Defendant should be barred, reduced, or offset
accordingly.

37. Plaintiffs’ damages should be reduced as an offset by any amount received by any
other payment to mitigate damages.

[k9quaint]

I read somewhere that pre-order money cannot be used for day-to-day company expenses, only parts and manufacturing costs for the product that has been pre-purchased.  For a publicly traded company, it needs to go straight into an escrow account and not touched until the product is shipped.   

Pre-orders cannot be declared as income. They recorded as deferred revenue (by real companies, not BFL).

Generally accepted accounting principles require you to record income when you deliver the merchandise or provide the services. You must also either receive payment or have a reasonable expectation that you will receive payment. The reasoning behind the concept of deferred revenue is that you have not yet earned the income, and until you have, you have a potential liability because you will have to refund the money if you do not ship the order or provide the service.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/deferred-revenue-vs-promise-pay-34293.html

Advance payments or unearned revenue, recorded on the recipient's balance sheet as a liability, until the services have been rendered or products have been delivered. Deferred revenue is a liability because it refers to revenue that has not yet been earned, but represents products or services that are owed to the customer. As the product or service is delivered over time, it is recognized as revenue on the income statement.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deferredrevenue.asp

BFL took their customer's money and bought houses and cars for friends and family of Sonny V. That is not GAAP. 

[bcp19]

I read somewhere that pre-order money cannot be used for day-to-day company expenses, only parts and manufacturing costs for the product that has been pre-purchased.  For a publicly traded company, it needs to go straight into an escrow account and not touched until the product is shipped.   

Pre-orders cannot be declared as income. They recorded as deferred revenue (by real companies, not BFL).

Generally accepted accounting principles require you to record income when you deliver the merchandise or provide the services. You must also either receive payment or have a reasonable expectation that you will receive payment. The reasoning behind the concept of deferred revenue is that you have not yet earned the income, and until you have, you have a potential liability because you will have to refund the money if you do not ship the order or provide the service.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/deferred-revenue-vs-promise-pay-34293.html

Advance payments or unearned revenue, recorded on the recipient's balance sheet as a liability, until the services have been rendered or products have been delivered. Deferred revenue is a liability because it refers to revenue that has not yet been earned, but represents products or services that are owed to the customer. As the product or service is delivered over time, it is recognized as revenue on the income statement.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deferredrevenue.asp

BFL took their customer's money and bought houses and cars for friends and family of Sonny V. That is not GAAP. 

Wow, you are correct, pre-orders, as stated by the accountant on the stand in the hearing, are a LIABILITY.  HOWEVER, at the point in time that the  house was bought, BFL had a TRUE revenue of $2.5million, of which there had to be some profit.  Just because some of that profit was used in a matter you don't like means nothing, as they can use their profit any way they like.  You are like JackRabbit, twisting things to fit into your demented mental picture that has nothing to do with actual reality.

[Collider]

While all the BFL posters of their systems look quite nice, i wont believe their efficiency stats until they provide proof of a hashing unit.

Also, with the Monarch at supposedly 0,39W/GH at chip level in normal mode, you will not get a better efficiency than 0,479W/GH at the wall.

On top of that, it remains to be seen how well (and easily) these units can be cooled, and i have my doubts about the density in which these can be deployed.

However, as chip design isn´t handled directly by BFL but outsourced to a chip desing house, it could be possible that they have produced / are producing an efficient product.

0,33W/GH at 28nm is entirely possible with a good chip design.


Lets see wether it will take BFL another 2 months or more to "ramp up" their production, until atleast some customers receive their product.

[k9quaint]

HOWEVER, at the point in time that the  house was bought, BFL had a TRUE revenue of $2.5million, of which there had to be some profit. 

Why does there "have to be profit"? From BFL's own chief financial officer while testifying under oath:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217190031/2014-01-28-USA-v-Vleisides-Transcript

In terms of revenue, in 2012 the company did about $2 and a half million of revenue

I direct your attention that in the financial statement it was stated in 2012 there is a loss of approximately $139,000, whereas on the tax return it's $836,000.

BFL themselves said there was no profit. Their tax returns said they lost $839,000. Their financial statements said they lost $139,000. Yet they bought houses and cars with pre-order money when they knew they wouldn't be shipping product any time soon and they knew there were no profits.

It is very telling that you quote the revenue figure from the  USA v Vleisides 2014 transcript but leave out the part where there was no profit. Talk about cherry picking the data.

[Bicknellski]

HOWEVER, at the point in time that the  house was bought, BFL had a TRUE revenue of $2.5million, of which there had to be some profit. 

Why does there "have to be profit"? From BFL's own chief financial officer while testifying under oath:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217190031/2014-01-28-USA-v-Vleisides-Transcript

In terms of revenue, in 2012 the company did about $2 and a half million of revenue

I direct your attention that in the financial statement it was stated in 2012 there is a loss of approximately $139,000, whereas on the tax return it's $836,000.

BFL themselves said there was no profit. Their tax returns said they lost $839,000. Their financial statements said they lost $139,000. Yet they bought houses and cars with pre-order money when they knew they wouldn't be shipping product any time soon and they knew there were no profits.

It is very telling that you quote the revenue figure from the  USA v Vleisides 2014 transcript but leave out the part where there was no profit. Talk about cherry picking the data.

Getting much harder for BFL to lie openly here and even harder for BCP to actually come across as truthful. There is a level of ignorance that goes beyond just being unaware. He is purposefully misleading people for some sort of gain it is painfully obvious at this point. Guy can't find the truth let alone tell it.

[bcp19]

HOWEVER, at the point in time that the  house was bought, BFL had a TRUE revenue of $2.5million, of which there had to be some profit. 

Why does there "have to be profit"? From BFL's own chief financial officer while testifying under oath:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217190031/2014-01-28-USA-v-Vleisides-Transcript

In terms of revenue, in 2012 the company did about $2 and a half million of revenue

I direct your attention that in the financial statement it was stated in 2012 there is a loss of approximately $139,000, whereas on the tax return it's $836,000.

BFL themselves said there was no profit. Their tax returns said they lost $839,000. Their financial statements said they lost $139,000. Yet they bought houses and cars with pre-order money when they knew they wouldn't be shipping product any time soon and they knew there were no profits.

It is very telling that you quote the revenue figure from the  USA v Vleisides 2014 transcript but leave out the part where there was no profit. Talk about cherry picking the data.

I love telling you how stupid you are.  Just because they can show a loss does not mean they had no profit from the sales of the FPGAs.  If you cannot understand how businesses work, then I am not going to waste my time educating you.  But trust me, you are stupid. (so is Bick)

[k9quaint]

HOWEVER, at the point in time that the  house was bought, BFL had a TRUE revenue of $2.5million, of which there had to be some profit. 

Why does there "have to be profit"? From BFL's own chief financial officer while testifying under oath:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217190031/2014-01-28-USA-v-Vleisides-Transcript

In terms of revenue, in 2012 the company did about $2 and a half million of revenue

I direct your attention that in the financial statement it was stated in 2012 there is a loss of approximately $139,000, whereas on the tax return it's $836,000.

BFL themselves said there was no profit. Their tax returns said they lost $839,000. Their financial statements said they lost $139,000. Yet they bought houses and cars with pre-order money when they knew they wouldn't be shipping product any time soon and they knew there were no profits.

It is very telling that you quote the revenue figure from the  USA v Vleisides 2014 transcript but leave out the part where there was no profit. Talk about cherry picking the data.

I love telling you how stupid you are.  Just because they can show a loss does not mean they had no profit from the sales of the FPGAs.  If you cannot understand how businesses work, then I am not going to waste my time educating you.  But trust me, you are stupid. (so is Bick)

Clearly, you do not understand the difference between profit and cash flow. BFL's CFO declared on the record there was no profit, only revenue. You claimed there were profits because there were revenue. That makes you the stupid one. If you would stop making random comments while trying to white knight, we wouldn't have to educate you on the meaning of words.

Obviously BFL has engaged in creative accounting to funnel money out of the company in the form of loans. They would want to show the smallest possible loss on their financial statements because that affects their ability to do business via credit lines, bank accounts, leases, purchase order terms, etc. On the other hand, on their tax returns they would want to show the largest possible loss. So the rosiest scenario has BFL only losing $139K and the worst case scenario has them losing as much as $839K.

As for BFL's cash flow, the money flowed from their customers wallets and into houses and cars for the defendants. Nobody (except you, and you are something of a nobody around here) disputes that.

This case is closed. All that is left is for you to spew nonsense at the cameras on the courthouse steps. Sadly for your benefactors at BFL, their legal troubles are just beginning and everyone around here (except you again, since you are a nobody) will enjoy watching them slow roast in the fires of our courts. Every minute, someone's refund gets turned into a loan for Sonny V and friends or goes to pay BFL's lawyers to extend the carnival ride for as long as possible.  You had better get cracking on that refund. 

[bcp19]

HOWEVER, at the point in time that the  house was bought, BFL had a TRUE revenue of $2.5million, of which there had to be some profit. 

Why does there "have to be profit"? From BFL's own chief financial officer while testifying under oath:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217190031/2014-01-28-USA-v-Vleisides-Transcript

In terms of revenue, in 2012 the company did about $2 and a half million of revenue

I direct your attention that in the financial statement it was stated in 2012 there is a loss of approximately $139,000, whereas on the tax return it's $836,000.

BFL themselves said there was no profit. Their tax returns said they lost $839,000. Their financial statements said they lost $139,000. Yet they bought houses and cars with pre-order money when they knew they wouldn't be shipping product any time soon and they knew there were no profits.

It is very telling that you quote the revenue figure from the  USA v Vleisides 2014 transcript but leave out the part where there was no profit. Talk about cherry picking the data.

I love telling you how stupid you are.  Just because they can show a loss does not mean they had no profit from the sales of the FPGAs.  If you cannot understand how businesses work, then I am not going to waste my time educating you.  But trust me, you are stupid. (so is Bick)

Clearly, you do not understand the difference between profit and cash flow. BFL's CFO declared on the record there was no profit, only revenue. You claimed there were profits because there were revenue. That makes you the stupid one. If you would stop making random comments while trying to white knight, we wouldn't have to educate you on the meaning of words.

Obviously BFL has engaged in creative accounting to funnel money out of the company in the form of loans. They would want to show the smallest possible loss on their financial statements because that affects their ability to do business via credit lines, bank accounts, leases, purchase order terms, etc. On the other hand, on their tax returns they would want to show the largest possible loss. So the rosiest scenario has BFL only losing $139K and the worst case scenario has them losing as much as $839K.

As for BFL's cash flow, the money flowed from their customers wallets and into houses and cars for the defendants. Nobody (except you, and you are something of a nobody around here) disputes that.

This case is closed. All that is left is for you to spew nonsense at the cameras on the courthouse steps. Sadly for your benefactors at BFL, their legal troubles are just beginning and everyone around here (except you again, since you are a nobody) will enjoy watching them slow roast in the fires of our courts. Every minute, someone's refund gets turned into a loan for Sonny V and friends or goes to pay BFL's lawyers to extend the carnival ride for as long as possible.  You had better get cracking on that refund. 

You are so stupid it hurts to read what spews out of your mouth.  As to the highlighted comment above, HUH?  Why would I be at a courthouse?  Are you insane as well as stupid?  How do I become involved in this? 

[k9quaint]

HOWEVER, at the point in time that the  house was bought, BFL had a TRUE revenue of $2.5million, of which there had to be some profit. 

Why does there "have to be profit"? From BFL's own chief financial officer while testifying under oath:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217190031/2014-01-28-USA-v-Vleisides-Transcript

In terms of revenue, in 2012 the company did about $2 and a half million of revenue

I direct your attention that in the financial statement it was stated in 2012 there is a loss of approximately $139,000, whereas on the tax return it's $836,000.

BFL themselves said there was no profit. Their tax returns said they lost $839,000. Their financial statements said they lost $139,000. Yet they bought houses and cars with pre-order money when they knew they wouldn't be shipping product any time soon and they knew there were no profits.

It is very telling that you quote the revenue figure from the  USA v Vleisides 2014 transcript but leave out the part where there was no profit. Talk about cherry picking the data.

I love telling you how stupid you are.  Just because they can show a loss does not mean they had no profit from the sales of the FPGAs.  If you cannot understand how businesses work, then I am not going to waste my time educating you.  But trust me, you are stupid. (so is Bick)

Clearly, you do not understand the difference between profit and cash flow. BFL's CFO declared on the record there was no profit, only revenue. You claimed there were profits because there were revenue. That makes you the stupid one. If you would stop making random comments while trying to white knight, we wouldn't have to educate you on the meaning of words.

Obviously BFL has engaged in creative accounting to funnel money out of the company in the form of loans. They would want to show the smallest possible loss on their financial statements because that affects their ability to do business via credit lines, bank accounts, leases, purchase order terms, etc. On the other hand, on their tax returns they would want to show the largest possible loss. So the rosiest scenario has BFL only losing $139K and the worst case scenario has them losing as much as $839K.

As for BFL's cash flow, the money flowed from their customers wallets and into houses and cars for the defendants. Nobody (except you, and you are something of a nobody around here) disputes that.

This case is closed. All that is left is for you to spew nonsense at the cameras on the courthouse steps. Sadly for your benefactors at BFL, their legal troubles are just beginning and everyone around here (except you again, since you are a nobody) will enjoy watching them slow roast in the fires of our courts. Every minute, someone's refund gets turned into a loan for Sonny V and friends or goes to pay BFL's lawyers to extend the carnival ride for as long as possible.  You had better get cracking on that refund. 

You are so stupid it hurts to read what spews out of your mouth.  As to the highlighted comment above, HUH?  Why would I be at a courthouse?  Are you insane as well as stupid?  How do I become involved in this? 

al·le·go·ry
ˈaləˌgôrē
noun
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
"Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory of the spiritual journey"
synonyms: parable, analogy, metaphor, symbol, emblem More a symbol.

Again with your nonsense and total lack of understanding. I feel we are doomed to post here explaining the meaning the words to you until time stands still or BFL delivers the monarch, which ever happens first.

Given that you don't understand what profit is, it is clear now why you bought from BFL in the first place. 
You deserve props for turning your losing bet with BFL into a lucrative consulting job misleading folks on these forums (and probably others as well).

[bcp19]

al·le·go·ry
ˈaləˌgôrē
noun
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
"Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory of the spiritual journey"
synonyms: parable, analogy, metaphor, symbol, emblem More a symbol.

Again with your nonsense and total lack of understanding. I feel we are doomed to post here explaining the meaning the words to you until time stands still or BFL delivers the monarch, which ever happens first.

Given that you don't understand what profit is, it is clear now why you bought from BFL in the first place. 
You deserve props for turning your losing bet with BFL into a lucrative consulting job misleading folks on these forums (and probably others as well).

I understand quite well, it's just that you parse multiple things together into an incomprehensible montage that would even leave Picasso scratching his head.

First off, I was an electronics technician in the Navy, not an electrical engineer.  That means I specialize in testing and troubleshoot electronic equipment, not the creation of specialized chips and PCB boards..  Why would I be a paid consultant if all I know how to do is test and troubleshoot and as I mentioned in the other post, I'm sitting in a chair in Iowa right now, so long distance consulting on how to test things?  Wow.  I wish your fantasies were true.

Since I don't understand what profit is, I guess the simple fact that I started out roughly a year ago with 6 GPUs and some electricity and between then and now I have purchased less than 1BTC with USD out of my pocket, purchased a 5GH Jalapeno for $308 and ordered a 300GH Monarch for 2.03BTC from BFL.  Along the way I was given a 24GH little single and have picked up a few other things.  If I were to total everything I currently own AND have on preorder, I have spent less than 10BTC if I had made all of my purchases in BTC at the time of acquiring them.  At current market rates, if I were to convert every crypto coin I own to BTC, I currently am worth over 110BTC.  Guess I really don't understand profit.

The funny thing here is that you keep slinging mud in the hopes it will stick, and as yet you've failed.  First I am a shill, then I am doing a bad job as a shill, now I'm a paid consultant.  What's next, going to promote me to stockholder?  Maybe even give me Josh's job?  Heck, maybe you even think *I* own the company. 

[solarion]

You lost this argument kool-aid man. Gracefully concede.

[markj113]

al·le·go·ry
ˈaləˌgôrē
noun
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
"Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory of the spiritual journey"
synonyms: parable, analogy, metaphor, symbol, emblem More a symbol.

Again with your nonsense and total lack of understanding. I feel we are doomed to post here explaining the meaning the words to you until time stands still or BFL delivers the monarch, which ever happens first.

Given that you don't understand what profit is, it is clear now why you bought from BFL in the first place. 
You deserve props for turning your losing bet with BFL into a lucrative consulting job misleading folks on these forums (and probably others as well).

I understand quite well, it's just that you parse multiple things together into an incomprehensible montage that would even leave Picasso scratching his head.

First off, I was an electronics technician in the Navy, not an electrical engineer.  That means I specialize in testing and troubleshoot electronic equipment, not the creation of specialized chips and PCB boards..  Why would I be a paid consultant if all I know how to do is test and troubleshoot and as I mentioned in the other post, I'm sitting in a chair in Iowa right now, so long distance consulting on how to test things?  Wow.  I wish your fantasies were true.

Since I don't understand what profit is, I guess the simple fact that I started out roughly a year ago with 6 GPUs and some electricity and between then and now I have purchased less than 1BTC with USD out of my pocket, purchased a 5GH Jalapeno for $308 and ordered a 300GH Monarch for 2.03BTC from BFL.  Along the way I was given a 24GH little single and have picked up a few other things.  If I were to total everything I currently own AND have on preorder, I have spent less than 10BTC if I had made all of my purchases in BTC at the time of acquiring them.  At current market rates, if I were to convert every crypto coin I own to BTC, I currently am worth over 110BTC.  Guess I really don't understand profit.

The funny thing here is that you keep slinging mud in the hopes it will stick, and as yet you've failed.  First I am a shill, then I am doing a bad job as a shill, now I'm a paid consultant.  What's next, going to promote me to stockholder?  Maybe even give me Josh's job?  Heck, maybe you even think *I* own the company. 

bcp19 & BFL Josh   -