Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 06:52:02 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ... 81 »
  Print  
Author Topic: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2)  (Read 138734 times)
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
December 09, 2011, 01:28:47 AM
 #141

Seems like it's the same computer. Both computers have the same name (z61p-ThinkPad-W520) which isn't that strange since it's automatically chosen by Ubuntu (as far as I know). But they're also both logged in as the same user (z61p) which is a stranger coincidence.

My guess is there is a reasonable explanation for this, and we will probably get it soon.
Be very wary of relying on JavaScript for security on sites such as blockchain.info and brainwallet.org. The site can change the JavaScript at any time unless you take unusual precautions, and browsers are not generally known for their airtight security.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480963922
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480963922

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480963922
Reply with quote  #2

1480963922
Report to moderator
1480963922
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480963922

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480963922
Reply with quote  #2

1480963922
Report to moderator
1480963922
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480963922

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480963922
Reply with quote  #2

1480963922
Report to moderator
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
December 09, 2011, 01:38:18 AM
 #142

hmmm

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
December 09, 2011, 02:30:51 AM
 #143

That is BFL's laptop, not mine.  The one I plan on using for the test is an HP that BFL has not seen/had access to yet.


If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
December 09, 2011, 10:49:36 AM
 #144

That is BFL's laptop, not mine.  The one I plan on using for the test is an HP that BFL has not seen/had access to yet.
So let me get this straight... you wrote all that stuff about compiling the code from source and about how the board and test machine didn't have any kind of internet connection, and then you neglected to mention that you'd used a laptop set up and provided by BFL which could've had a hidden wireless connection to anywhere.  Did you even make sure that the binaries you were running actually corresponded to the source code you received, or did you use binaries that BFL provided too?

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
Turbor
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


BitMinter


View Profile WWW
December 09, 2011, 11:32:54 AM
 #145

We should be happy that Inaba does this whole test stuff. Roll Eyes

bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
December 09, 2011, 12:32:39 PM
 #146

Maybe we can get somebody else from Kansas to confirm Inaba and BFL Labs that clearly has no affiliation whatsoever and maybe does not even know about BTC. Another MyBitcoin ? Maybe, maybe not.
xzion
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 96


View Profile
December 09, 2011, 01:18:30 PM
 #147

That is BFL's laptop, not mine.  The one I plan on using for the test is an HP that BFL has not seen/had access to yet.
So let me get this straight... you wrote all that stuff about compiling the code from source and about how the board and test machine didn't have any kind of internet connection, and then you neglected to mention that you'd used a laptop set up and provided by BFL which could've had a hidden wireless connection to anywhere.  Did you even make sure that the binaries you were running actually corresponded to the source code you received, or did you use binaries that BFL provided too?

take it easy man, he's doing this for our benefit remember.
i'm sure when inaba has his own laptop he'll be able to give us some solid evidence.
in the mean time, chill out.

Tips: 1xzionJBueq1AkPSmexA7suWkztAkNwSs
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
December 09, 2011, 01:45:38 PM
 #148

That is BFL's laptop, not mine.  The one I plan on using for the test is an HP that BFL has not seen/had access to yet.
So let me get this straight... you wrote all that stuff about compiling the code from source and about how the board and test machine didn't have any kind of internet connection, and then you neglected to mention that you'd used a laptop set up and provided by BFL which could've had a hidden wireless connection to anywhere.  Did you even make sure that the binaries you were running actually corresponded to the source code you received, or did you use binaries that BFL provided too?

Neglected to mention it for what?  We haven't done the test yet...  How can I not mention something that hasn't even happened?

November 25th: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48863.msg631047#msg631047
Quote from: Inaba
I just got home after meeting with Sonny in person from BFL and their engineer via Skype.  We had a fairly long conversation and I live over 30 miles away, so that's why it's taken me this long.

We did some simulated testing, but no live testing tonight.  We elected to put that off until tomorrow or possibly Sunday to allow for proper testing instead of just throwing some tests together.  I have, however, seen several units (and I will post pictures of them) and seen them power up.  Beyond that, I have nothing definitive to say, other than so far, so good.  I will be meeting with them again this weekend to conclude the testing on the live pool on an isolated network with no net access.

While I was not able to inspect the chips under the two main heat sinks, the other chips are plainly visible and inspectable.  There is nothing on that board to indicate any sort of cellular connection, for those of you suspecting that sort of nefarious scheme.  It was hard to take pictures at the location we were in and I will have better pictures once they let me take a unit over night - I will put it in my light box and get some properly lighted pictures.

November 25th: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48863.msg631069#msg631069
Quote from: Inaba
I don't know why it says 0.  It wasn't a live test, so I wasn't too concerned, I was more interested in putting into a test loop to see what the power consumption was (which was 17.6W) - I took pictures of the Kill-A-Watt, but my flash blanked out the LCD screen of the Kill-A-Watt - I will get some non-flash pictures of it tomorrow or Sunday.

November 26th: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48863.msg631620#msg631620
Quote from: Inaba
The demo plan is that I will:

A) connect it to a non-routable development side of the pool, so that the box is unable to communicate with the internet.  I will then let it submit shares to the pool and I will have one of the getwork servers in debug mode and I will see what is sent out and what's sent back.  As I found no evidence of any wireless communications on the board, and since the computer it's connected to will not be on the internet, it won't have any way of falsifying the shares submitted.

B) I will take a unit home that evening, disassemble and take more robust pictures.  I will NOT be removing any heat sinks, however.  

C) I will do further testing that evening on my own with a packet analyzer to see  what packets are being transmitted, when and where they are going and coming from.

That's the plan as of right now, at any rate.

So my plan was published after the first meeting and we haven't done a second, live test yet.  So I'm a little confused as to what you are taking issue with?

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
December 09, 2011, 02:58:34 PM
 #149

Neglected to mention it for what?  We haven't done the test yet...  How can I not mention something that hasn't even happened?

This looks very much like a test to me, even if it isn't the final test:
Sorry it took so long to get this post up, but I have a few other things that had to be taken care last evening and I didn't get home till late and pretty much went straight to bed.  At any rate, we did a small demo of the hardware last night, here is the test data I used, which I pulled from one of the getwork servers of my pool:

Data: fd90c721557226679bfc01bc971be894ec08137d0f36fd923f822e4743f954da
Merkle: 9d0e5b394ed6ae311a0f61b1

Data: e4f4a3eb23855f185379d5833f0eabb9daee8483e43d39a6a9b3888882bfc0fa
Merkle: 29a9690f4ed6aecc1a0f61b1

Both of these were fresh out of my pool:

The first test should return one nonce of: 22D5485D  
The second should return no nonce value.  

I would ask that someone else validate my test data as well, to be sure what I have is accurate.  

In any case, the first test ran at a hashrate quite a bit lower than projected, but returned the expected nonce on the first round and zero nonces on the second, which was an accurate result.  After this, I did in fact witness a faster test at a speed close to the projected rate, but it was slightly unstable, often returning extra nonces that are invalid.  The explanation I was given for this was plausible and equally plausible that they could work the issues out.  Power consumption for the development unit was substantially higher than projected, but still well within a reasonable amount (as in, it wasn't taking 200 or 300w; it was much, much less).

Someone asked that I measure the actual chips - they are 30mm^2.

There were some technical difficulties that prevented us from conducting a more thorough test given the time constraints I was under - though BFL was more than willing to take whatever time was needed, even offering to come to my house this evening once they fixed the technical issue that prevented us from doing a comprehensive mining operation - though I am told it's fixed now and ready to go.  But in either case, I feel that the test we conducted showed a POC that adequately demonstrates that at least the hardware does what it's designed to do, if not at the speeds or power consumption stated at the moment.

Well stable, the BFL unit is > 4x the hashrate than ztek and more than double ngzhang. Power draw is also more than double ngzhang (Dunno what ztek power draw is).  Even allowing for a 10% efficiency decrease for "real world" scenario vs the test data, the numbers still hold.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
December 09, 2011, 03:16:47 PM
 #150

Quote
There were some technical difficulties that prevented us from conducting a more thorough test given the time constraints I was under - though BFL was more than willing to take whatever time was needed, even offering to come to my house this evening once they fixed the technical issue that prevented us from doing a comprehensive mining operation

There we go, I bolded the relevant part of the quote you just quoted.  Some people are never happy. 


If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
ngzhang
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 592


We will stand and fight.


View Profile
December 09, 2011, 03:33:38 PM
 #151

Well stable, the BFL unit is > 4x the hashrate than ztek and more than double ngzhang. Power draw is also more than double ngzhang (Dunno what ztek power draw is).  Even allowing for a 10% efficiency decrease for "real world" scenario vs the test data, the numbers still hold.

it means that if i change Icarus's price to less than 350$ than BFL's life is over?  Grin

ADD@2011/12/10

there must be soming misunderstanding here, i mean some other product(my me or other) reach <1$/M, not Icarus. sorry.

CEO of Canaan-creative, Founder of Avalon project.
https://canaan.io/
Business contact: love@canaan.io
All PMs will be unread.
kronosvl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 134


View Profile
December 09, 2011, 03:52:59 PM
 #152


Well stable, the BFL unit is > 4x the hashrate than ztek and more than double ngzhang. Power draw is also more than double ngzhang (Dunno what ztek power draw is).  Even allowing for a 10% efficiency decrease for "real world" scenario vs the test data, the numbers still hold.

it means that if i change Icarus's price to less than 350$ than BFL's life is over?  Grin

more like 250$ if you want almost the same amount of $/MH

Donations are accepted @: 19Uk8zVhdgfrRo5Z6wH9yghWxZUtdiNtX9
OTC: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=kronosvl
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile
December 09, 2011, 03:55:24 PM
 #153

more like 250$ if you want almost the same amount of $/MH
But Icarus is open and has more ports and usefulness, so yeah...

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
kronosvl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 134


View Profile
December 09, 2011, 04:05:36 PM
 #154

But Icarus is open and has more ports and usefulness, so yeah...
Depends how many people buy the boards for mining vs people that buy for mining and/or using them for other purposes. Some people will not pay 100$ more for other features. just $/MH and MH/w will be taken into consideration. I could be wrong though

Donations are accepted @: 19Uk8zVhdgfrRo5Z6wH9yghWxZUtdiNtX9
OTC: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=kronosvl
ngzhang
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 592


We will stand and fight.


View Profile
December 09, 2011, 04:24:34 PM
 #155


Well stable, the BFL unit is > 4x the hashrate than ztek and more than double ngzhang. Power draw is also more than double ngzhang (Dunno what ztek power draw is).  Even allowing for a 10% efficiency decrease for "real world" scenario vs the test data, the numbers still hold.

it means that if i change Icarus's price to less than 350$ than BFL's life is over?  Grin

more like 250$ if you want almost the same amount of $/MH

you mean 1.5MH/$?

yeah, it's extremely possible in the next 6-8week.  Grin

CEO of Canaan-creative, Founder of Avalon project.
https://canaan.io/
Business contact: love@canaan.io
All PMs will be unread.
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
December 09, 2011, 07:54:12 PM
 #156

There we go, I bolded the relevant part of the quote you just quoted.  Some people are never happy.
Personally I tend to think that the part just after that which you didn't bother to quote is kind of relevant too:
Quote
But in either case, I feel that the test we conducted showed a POC that adequately demonstrates that at least the hardware does what it's designed to do, if not at the speeds or power consumption stated at the moment.
Because it doesn't adequately demonstrate that after all - it doesn't even prove that the BitForce boards can calculate a single hash - and the only way we found out about this huge and unexpected flaw in the only third-party test so far was by accident. Bear in mind that for every day that passes more pre-order customers hit the 45 day limit after which Paypal won't give refunds if BFL don't deliver.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
BFL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 217



View Profile WWW
December 09, 2011, 08:24:29 PM
 #157

There we go, I bolded the relevant part of the quote you just quoted.  Some people are never happy.
Personally I tend to think that the part just after that which you didn't bother to quote is kind of relevant too:
Quote
But in either case, I feel that the test we conducted showed a POC that adequately demonstrates that at least the hardware does what it's designed to do, if not at the speeds or power consumption stated at the moment.
Because it doesn't adequately demonstrate that after all - it doesn't even prove that the BitForce boards can calculate a single hash - and the only way we found out about this huge and unexpected flaw in the only third-party test so far was by accident. Bear in mind that for every day that passes more pre-order customers hit the 45 day limit after which Paypal won't give refunds if BFL don't deliver.

The hostility is unnecessary.  If you have a purchase and are uncomfortable, simply ask for a refund.  If you don't and you're just a third party jerk, then with all due respect, mind your own business.  The heated passion is juvenile and irresponsible.  Get a grip.

Regards,
BFL


Butterfly Labs  -  www.butterflylabs.com  -  Bitcoin Mining Hardware
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
December 09, 2011, 08:54:35 PM
 #158

Because it doesn't adequately demonstrate that after all - it doesn't even prove that the BitForce boards can calculate a single hash - and the only way we found out about this huge and unexpected flaw in the only third-party test so far was by accident. Bear in mind that for every day that passes more pre-order customers hit the 45 day limit after which Paypal won't give refunds if BFL don't deliver.

That would be fine if there had actually been a test of the system.  All I've seen so far is a POC and as stated, what I've seen so far had lead me to the conclusion (hence the "I feel that the test we conducted showed a POC that adequately demonstartes that at least the hardware does what it's designed to do...") that this merits further investigations and is not an out and out fraud.

But seriously, come on down to KC here and you are welcome to sit in on the next test and conduct it in a manner you think is the right way.  You conspiracy nuts can go piss up a tree at this point. I'm tired of trying to cater to the nutbag leanings that have absolutely no basis in reality in terms of time frames, business practices, or technical development.

If someone has something to provide as far as something specific to test or some specific methodology, please speak up and I'll be glad to include it assuming it's feasible.  Otherwise, I really don't care. I'm evaluating this on behalf of the community and for my own edification and decision on whether or not to sink thousands of dollars into specialized bitcoin equipment or maintain my GPU farms.  If the community doesn't want my evaluation that's not really a detriment to me - I will still evaluate my options and what I see here and base my personal purchase decision accordingly. 

If the time comes and I recommend buying if it meets your needs and my credibility is not adequate, then by all means DO NOT BUY IT. I've never advocated preordering; I haven't preordered myself as of yet.  But should these devices prove to be everything they are shaping up to be so far that I have seen, I will likely be ordering at least a few to either supplement or replace some of my rigs.  Whether or not you choose to buy is, was and will be completely up to you.

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
December 09, 2011, 09:50:35 PM
 #159

But seriously, come on down to KC here and you are welcome to sit in on the next test and conduct it in a manner you think is the right way.  You conspiracy nuts can go piss up a tree at this point. I'm tired of trying to cater to the nutbag leanings that have absolutely no basis in reality in terms of time frames, business practices, or technical development.
This might possibly be a reasonable response if the "but the computer could be connecting to mining hardware elsewhere" problem was just something I came up with after the test that you didn't think of beforehand. It wasn't. It was important enough that your original test plan went to great lengths to explain why this would be impossible - obviously you knew people wouldn't believe a test that didn't block this kind of outside communication. Yet somehow you concluded that their box could actually mine shares based on a proof of concept test that didn't exclude this potential cheating, and failed to mention the change so that people could judge for themselves how reliable the test was, instead leading us all to assume that the test proved more than it actually did.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
December 09, 2011, 10:04:31 PM
 #160

I made no such conclusion.  I said the hardware does what it's designed to do - namely process SHA 256 hashes.

That said, I posted the test data which I provided from my pool.  The nonces were returned within the expected time frame.  The laptop could not have processed and produced the nonces on it's own (and therefore is not a candidate for cheating) and I find it highly unlikely that any remote connection could:

1) Setup a connection to process the data
2) Remote system process the data
3) Return / receive the processed nonces

All in the roughly exact same amount of time as it would take a box hashing 4.2 billion nones should take at a given hashrate.  I suppose they could have a giant GPU farm somewhere (Say a 4 GH/s farm as a conservative estimate) that is custom programmed to break up a single data block into multiple work units and farm all of those out to the multiple GPUs to hash, aggregate that data back (from a minimum of 5 separate GPUs) and return the results... but could they do it in under 6 seconds (and in some cases 4 seconds) over a wireless or cellular link?  You tell me, since your technical knowledge is superior to my own.

But for my money, I'm going to say it would have been far harder and far more costly to FAKE the results than it would have been to actually bring a piece of hardware that does what it's designed to do.  Not to mention, after sinking all that time and money into faking it, they are still going to have to hand over a unit to me for isolated testing at some point.

Additionally, this was not a reliable test by any stretch of the imagination.  It was a POC, as stated.  A reliable test has not been conducted as of yet, which has also been stated numerous times.



If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ... 81 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!