[Guide] Dogie's Comprehensive Manufacturer Trustworthiness Guide [1st Feb 2016]

[ElGrandJefe]

It's your ballgame, Dogie, but as someone who ordered both BFL 65 nm (then converted to 28 nm and ultimately refunded last April) and a few X-1s from BA, BA's ethics are definitely worse in my eyes. Regardless of BFL's motivation - I suspect it was because of the pending class-action lawsuit, the FTC breathing down their necks, or both - they were at least issuing refunds. Although they made their customers wait far too long for them.

In contrast, BA promised refunds to many customers in April and May, then stonewalled for months until finally announcing that there would be no refunds.

Both companies lied continuously and constantly about their engineering progress and shipping dates. Both companies were also founded by convicted criminals.

[dogie]

It's your ballgame, Dogie, but as someone who ordered both BFL 65 nm (then converted to 28 nm and ultimately refunded last April) and a few X-1s from BA, BA's ethics are definitely worse in my eyes. Regardless of BFL's motivation - I suspect it was because of the pending class-action lawsuit, the FTC breathing down their necks, or both - they were at least issuing refunds. Although they made their customers wait far too long for them.

In contrast, BA promised refunds to many customers in April and May, then stonewalled for months until finally announcing that there would be no refunds.

Both companies lied continuously and constantly about their engineering progress and shipping dates. Both companies were also founded by convicted criminals.

You're one of the lucky ones who got out with no damage then, BFL for swathes of time were NOT honouring refunds, even if they said they were publicly.

[Meizirkki]

KnC's score actually went up after the update...

The changelog says KnC quality went from 6 to 1 but you forgot to modify that part in the actual list.

[dogie]

The changelog says KnC quality went from 6 to 1 but you forgot to modify that part in the actual list.

Fixed

[RoadStress]

nobody has reported getting any unit up to this point (review units don't count).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=795477.msg9273242#msg9273242

He is a reseller, not a customer.

[Pentax]

Its to represent that what they pulled with the 65nm delays, mis-selling, making potentially false/misleading claims, potentially misleading statements about tapeout etc, targeting new buyers with insanely old hardware and the repeated 'tradeups' with the second generation delays. Simply put, no other company has come close to what BFL did over the last 18-24 months - as highlighted by the FTC taking over the company. Blackarrow is getting close, but they're not at that level yet and still have an opportunity to fix it.

Blackarrow

- Repeatedly lied about shipping dates.
- Only 30% of hardware shipped 6 months late.
- Promised to be the best $/gh but decided screw it that would cost money.
- Several customers blackmailed/doxed by the company
- Shipping hardware to resellers before customers who ordered earlier
- Denied refunds even though they were promised after they began shipping.
- Compensation completely garbage for the huge delays.
- Heavy censorship of their thread/forum.
- Nearly every customer left feeling ripped off.

Ethics: 5/10

BTCGarden

- No delays
- No problem with RMAs/partial refunds.
- Great customer support which makes sure customers do not feel ripped off.
- MAY have told a lie about their DOA %.

Ethics: 5/10

You're right in some respects, the ethics category doesn't have much depth. The problem is the more criteria / sub-criteria I add, the more I'll be accused of being biased or gaming the system somehow. By leaving it more rigid it removes that ability for any one person [me] to have too much control - the criteria is the criteria and everything has to fit into them.

The way you're wrong though is BTCGarden: 73, Black Arrow: 35. Not everything fits into the ethics category.

True.  There is a lot of weight placed on whether or not a company is running a mine.  We don't know that Black Arrow isn't.  Although there's no proof, they initially claimed their data center was ready to go online to begin their cloudhashing service and then some time later claimed they couldn't be mining because their data center wasn't ready.  I obviously know they can't be dinged for something that is unproven but it remains unclear why they haven't delivered a larger number of X-3's and given their overall ethics that I've seen, if they can be, they are.

I do wonder where the assumption that Black Arrow is large comes from.  They don't seem to be building much of anything themselves, have contracted out assembly and there is no clear indication of a large number of employees.  So, we've got what, a handful of engineers (maybe) and a few customer service personnel (again, maybe) and whoever it is that's running this mess in terms of "management".

[drasted]

nobody has reported getting any unit up to this point (review units don't count).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=795477.msg9273242#msg9273242

He is a reseller, not a customer.

Resellers are customers. Why wouldn't you consider them to be?
"Customer: a person who buys goods or services from a shop or business."
What they do with the goods after receiving it makes no difference. They're still shipped all the same whether they're keeping it or selling it to other people.

[mwizard]

Should Bitfury really be the top rating company in the list.

They do not sell to the general public.  Just manufacture for their own mammoth mining farms and to sell to a handful of other large miners.  As they have not sold to the general public for some time how can they be assessed?

Perhaps there could be a rating or flag that indicates suppliers which "Sell to General Public".

[dogie]

Should Bitfury really be the top rating company in the list.

They do not sell to the general public.  Just manufacture for their own mammoth mining farms and to sell to a handful of other large miners.  As they have not sold to the general public for some time how can they be assessed?

Perhaps there could be a rating or flag that indicates suppliers which "Sell to General Public".

Are those large miners not the general public?

[allcoinminer]

According to "Bitmain employee of the Year" dogie in his updated "no conflict of interest here" manufacturer trustworthiness guide - these are classed as "minor" problems, so obviously they are not too bothered about it. Their "please wait patiently" phrase is one of their favourites, ask any S2 owner, they've been "waiting patiently" for 9 weeks now......and still nothing 

dogie is an employee of Bitmain and there is a conflict of interest in conscious or unconscious level.
So, dogie statement should be considered as Bitmain's even if he is not agreeing that there is no conflict of interest.
It's already evident in his messages.

Wrong thread.

This company's rating has been updated in the Manufacturer Trustworthiness thread.

[This message won't be monitored, discuss your concerns in the thread.]

Wrong thread.

Its hard to properly rate a company that is paying you

A lot of hardware/software issues with Bitmain S3 and S3+ miners since launch.
Again S4 have PSU issues.
But you mentioned in your rating as minor issues only.
Please revise it if possible.

[bolehvpn]

The S3 and S3+ miners have not been all that problematic as far as I know?

S4 is a clear problem with both cgminer and PSU issues. Remains to be seen how far they can resolve it. Guide should reflect that latest S4 release has issues but compensation is underway and rating should be lowered until the compensation and more people get their replacement PSUs and then raised again.

[bolehvpn]

Btw I perceive hardware quality as a bigger determinant than 'uses own chips'. I think history has shown that using their own chips may actually increase problems especially when coupled with pre-orders.

At least when integrating other chips, they tend to be more certain about performance and is easier for them to meet deadlines.

Perhaps there should be given a different weightage?

After all just imagine if a miner manufacturer has good comms and delivers on time, but the hardware has some serious issues....

Even if the manufacturer only scores a 1 in quality of hardware, he would still be able to probably get a 80+ rating if the dockage in ethics and refunds are not complete.

[Askit2]

The S3 and S3+ miners have not been all that problematic as far as I know?

S4 is a clear problem with both cgminer and PSU issues. Remains to be seen how far they can resolve it. Guide should reflect that latest S4 release has issues but compensation is underway and rating should be lowered until the compensation and more people get their replacement PSUs and then raised again.

In regards to the S3 and S3+ I would disagree. Miners shipped with cgminer 3.12 current was 4.6 They shipped 1 major and many minor revisions behind. Many security fixes one that can lead to lost revenue via a redirect call so your miners mine for others. I wouldn't call that nor the double at least processor load trivial. They promised months ago to fix it.

The S4 seems like the S2 again. Power supply issues. Not really new. I could be wrong I don't follow them.

[dogie]

A lot of hardware/software issues with Bitmain S3 and S3+ miners since launch.
Again S4 have PSU issues.
But you mentioned in your rating as minor issues only.
Please revise it if possible.

Nothing wrong with S3s, they're probably the most prolific single SKU of any miner outside of USBs.

They're considered minor issues as customers are being compensated - only the company losses out.

[dogie]

Btw I perceive hardware quality as a bigger determinant than 'uses own chips'. I think history has shown that using their own chips may actually increase problems especially when coupled with pre-orders. At least when integrating other chips, they tend to be more certain about performance and is easier for them to meet deadlines. Perhaps there should be given a different weightage?

After all just imagine if a miner manufacturer has good comms and delivers on time, but the hardware has some serious issues.... Even if the manufacturer only scores a 1 in quality of hardware, he would still be able to probably get a 80+ rating if the dockage in ethics and refunds are not complete.

This has been discussed many times, search the thread for "chips". Its to do with the 7 figure investment from the company required up front, compared to buying quantities as low as 4 figures from the market.

[btmtb]

To add to the ethics debate, I believe that BlackArrow should fall under this criteria:
   O    = Other generic unethical behaviour = -5

Deleting over 100 pages of customer discussions on this forum, for posting customers personal contact details on the users Trust rating page - in breach of their own privacy policy, allowing out personal details as customers to be exposed to unconnected third party's and failing to offer a proper, proven, explanation... the list still goes on. What additional information or evidence would you need to consider each of these dogie?

cheers

[Koontas]

Is it actually true that Spondoolies has distributed ALL units ON TIME?

I'm sure that will change with the SP-20 if it is the case currently.

[dogie]

To add to the ethics debate, I believe that BlackArrow should fall under this criteria:
   O    = Other generic unethical behaviour = -5

Deleting over 100 pages of customer discussions on this forum, for posting customers personal contact details on the users Trust rating page - in breach of their own privacy policy, allowing out personal details as customers to be exposed to unconnected third party's and failing to offer a proper, proven, explanation... the list still goes on. What additional information or evidence would you need to consider each of these dogie?

cheers

Blackarrow have had an 'O' infraction for quite some time now.

[btmtb]

Blackarrow have had an 'O' infraction for quite some time now.

Ahh, sorry I misunderstood (it seems obvious now). I assumed that such as egregious general attitude to, and direct breaches, of ethics would take the absolute score for this section down to -5, but I understand now that it is simply a modifier. What would it take to lower this to zero? Are the negative applied once regardless of quantity of breaches, or across x-size time frames etc?

[hdbuck]

seriously why not simply rate BA, BFL and AMT with a bold 0?
you need to emphasis their complete failure and provide anyone else from ever falling in their unscrupulous nets again.