Cairnsmore1 - Quad XC6SLX150 Board

[yohan]

Did I miss something ??

Do the boards now do over 800MH/s stable? - NO
Do the boards have their own bitstream? - NO

So I dont think you missed anything.

Hopefully its a prelude to Yohan announcing a bitstream that works.
Or perhaps they have hardware in the lab that works and they are going to recall all the faulty boards.
Hopefully they did a respin of the hardware and will ship it with a working bitstream this time.

kind regards

I don't how you really know as you don't have a board. You cancelled as soon as *** came on the scene with an announcement so don't get bitter if you made the wrong decision.

Outside a very small number of boards listed on this forum there are hundreds working and pretty much stable in the field especially since Controller Rev 1.2. We are still working to tweek the Controller more as is and and will be a much more major change when we bring in our own bitstream design. More on that when we are ready.

There are a handful of boards that probably have a hardware fault and we are replacing them. We are still to have any of these back and to do properal analysis on them but that will happen in due course. There are also a few customers that have particular problems out of a number exceeding 100 rigs. We believe most of these issues are a combination of USB, OS, driver and CGminer issues all of which are basically third party items. There may also be a few more hardware failures as well amongst that lot. We are working our way through those issues as fast as we can but there are literally hundreds of possible combinations and it is hard and slow work to model problems in the lab so we can debug and fix issues. Our big rig that is starting to take shape will give us a good platform to find and fix the oddball issues.

We have made the pricing change based on the availability of eldentyrell's bitstream being available, at close to the rate he has been promising, and we believe that is running in several Cairnsmore1 boards. We said this would happen no matter where a bitstream came from. The pricing change isn't much of an effect on existing customers and everyone that has purchased gets the chance to buy same again at the offer price until the end of September. Over that the new pricing also takes account of previous orders for the benefit of discounting so we think we have been very fair to customers that have committed to us. We do need to raise prices to cover the costs of support work and it is important to the product development that we do that.

We are continuing to deliver boards on time and in some cases earlier than promised.

The only place we might be seen to be at fault in my view is finishing our bitstream and not getting the Icarus replication quite perfect. The bitstream is a couple of weeks behind schedule but does have great promise. All I can say is that we sold this product as a concept going into a development program and it is exactly that. I don't think we could have been clearer on that to potential customers and any that have been unhappy about the current project state have been allowed to cancel or delay pre-orders payments as they wished. We are making significant forward progess on this project every week and the product gets better every day as a result of that.

Outside of all this I think we already have the product with the best capability and design currently available in the Bitstream market. I don't think anyone has a thermal solution as good as ours. Running close to maximum power the heatsinks sit at 5-10 DegC above ambient with the F12 fan running. Protection for fan fail also came this week in Controller rev 1.3. You are free to dissagree on all of that and I would say go and make your own if you can do better. We will stand on what we have done against any competition and we will do that in a totally fair fashion. We are still only on the 12th week of product development and I don't think we are doing too badly given what has been achieved by the team at Enterpoint. There is more to come and that will be delivered as fast as we can achieve that.

[1714205470]

1714205470

[1714205470]

1714205470

[1714205470]

1714205470

[1714205470]

1714205470

[wildemagic]

I don't how you really know as you don't have a board.

I know from your customers as I been following the thread with interest.  

You cancelled as soon as *** came on the scene with an announcement so don't get bitter if you made the wrong decision.

Im not bitter at all, I made the right decision.
I bought 4 icarus instead of 2 cairnsmore so im pretty happy with my purchase, worked out cheaper and more reliable than your solution.

I cant understand why your getting so pissy at me for showing interest, I guess its a reflection of your frustration over inability to deliver.
Hopefully you can stop blaming everything else and work out some of the kinks, your hardware looks promising.

We have made the pricing change based on the availability of eldentyrell's bitstream being available, at close to the rate he has been promising, and we believe that is running in several Cairnsmore1 boards.

We all know thats not true, I also watch Elden's thread with interest.  Nothing is working on CM1 boards.

kind regards

[ShadesOfMarble]

We have made the pricing change based on the availability of eldentyrell's bitstream being available, at close to the rate he has been promising, and we believe that is running in several Cairnsmore1 boards.

Huh? I have yet to see a CM with ET's bitstream running at "advertised" speed (or: submitting a single valid share). I got this far using his bitstream:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49971.msg1030025#msg1030025

I don't know anyone who got further. If you know more, pleast let us know.

[ebereon]

We have made the pricing change based on the availability of eldentyrell's bitstream being available, at close to the rate he has been promising, and we believe that is running in several Cairnsmore1 boards.

Huh? I have yet to see a CM with ET's bitstream running at "advertised" speed (or: submitting a single valid share). I got this far using his bitstream:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49971.msg1030025#msg1030025

I don't know anyone who got further. If you know more, pleast let us know.

I was to slow... I want to ask the same

If that is possible, please yohan give us the hint how. I would realy like something that is faster then the twin_test bitstream!

eb

[Entropy-uc]

My blue LED problem went away by completely powering down the affected boards and restarting.  Twin_test came back up and the boards ran normally.

Out of 40 boards, I have 39 hashing.  36 of these are at full twin_test speed.  The remaining 3 are running around half speed, and the one not operating is due to a corrupted windows driver.  I don't think that is bad at all for prototype boards one month into production.

I had 2 USB cables that gave intermittent issues.  Once I started swapping cables and scrapping any where the problem didn't reproduce with a second cable, life got a lot easier.

The other thing is making sure the DIP switches are set correct.  I don't know if it's my dyslexia or I'm just stupid, but I had a terrible time with the orientation of the USB settings images.  I ended up drawing my own settings list oriented from the power end of the board.  Yohan, it would help if you rotated the switch images 90 degrees counterclockwise before posting.

37 boards plus the controller PC are drawing 975W peak according to my kill-a-watt.

[Nemesis]

Did I miss something ??

Do the boards now do over 800MH/s stable? - NO
Do the boards have their own bitstream? - NO

So I dont think you missed anything.

Hopefully its a prelude to Yohan announcing a bitstream that works.
Or perhaps they have hardware in the lab that works and they are going to recall all the faulty boards.
Hopefully they did a respin of the hardware and will ship it with a working bitstream this time.

kind regards

I don't how you really know as you don't have a board. You cancelled as soon as *** came on the scene with an announcement so don't get bitter if you made the wrong decision.

Outside a very small number of boards listed on this forum there are hundreds working and pretty much stable in the field especially since Controller Rev 1.2. We are still working to tweek the Controller more as is and and will be a much more major change when we bring in our own bitstream design. More on that when we are ready.

There are a handful of boards that probably have a hardware fault and we are replacing them. We are still to have any of these back and to do properal analysis on them but that will happen in due course. There are also a few customers that have particular problems out of a number exceeding 100 rigs. We believe most of these issues are a combination of USB, OS, driver and CGminer issues all of which are basically third party items. There may also be a few more hardware failures as well amongst that lot. We are working our way through those issues as fast as we can but there are literally hundreds of possible combinations and it is hard and slow work to model problems in the lab so we can debug and fix issues. Our big rig that is starting to take shape will give us a good platform to find and fix the oddball issues.

We have made the pricing change based on the availability of eldentyrell's bitstream being available, at close to the rate he has been promising, and we believe that is running in several Cairnsmore1 boards. We said this would happen no matter where a bitstream came from. The pricing change isn't much of an effect on existing customers and everyone that has purchased gets the chance to buy same again at the offer price until the end of September. Over that the new pricing also takes account of previous orders for the benefit of discounting so we think we have been very fair to customers that have committed to us. We do need to raise prices to cover the costs of support work and it is important to the product development that we do that.

We are continuing to deliver boards on time and in some cases earlier than promised.

The only place we might be seen to be at fault in my view is finishing our bitstream and not getting the Icarus replication quite perfect. The bitstream is a couple of weeks behind schedule but does have great promise. All I can say is that we sold this product as a concept going into a development program and it is exactly that. I don't think we could have been clearer on that to potential customers and any that have been unhappy about the current project state have been allowed to cancel or delay pre-orders payments as they wished. We are making significant forward progess on this project every week and the product gets better every day as a result of that.

Outside of all this I think we already have the product with the best capability and design currently available in the Bitstream market. I don't think anyone has a thermal solution as good as ours. Running close to maximum power the heatsinks sit at 5-10 DegC above ambient with the F12 fan running. Protection for fan fail also came this week in Controller rev 1.3. You are free to dissagree on all of that and I would say go and make your own if you can do better. We will stand on what we have done against any competition and we will do that in a totally fair fashion. We are still only on the 12th week of product development and I don't think we are doing too badly given what has been achieved by the team at Enterpoint. There is more to come and that will be delivered as fast as we can achieve that.

what a long read of irrelevant to the questions at hand.

Same approach with your bitstream?

[wildemagic]

what a long read of irrelevant to the questions at hand.

I agree, once again Yohan has resorted to FUD rather than give an actual update.

Same approach with your bitstream?

I hope they dont try to lay the blame on Elden if the tricone stream doesnt solve the issues.
I would really like to see this hardware platform take off.  Looks really promising.

Its interesting that Enterpoint still havnt attempted to release a bitstream.
Perhaps the hardware issues are not correctable by software.

kind regards

[spiccioli]

We have made the pricing change based on the availability of eldentyrell's bitstream being available, at close to the rate he has been promising, and we believe that is running in several Cairnsmore1 boards. We said this would happen no matter where a

I add myself to the list of people that did try the ET bitstream and did find that it does not work on my cm1 boards.

spiccioli

[kano]

...
We believe most of these issues are a combination of USB, OS, driver and CGminer issues all of which are basically third party items.
...

Um excuse me but don't blame your shit on cgminer.
The version you are recommending to your customers is your fault - not done by cgminer devs.

I've had no access to the hardware at all and at least got something that sorta worked without ANY support from you or your team.

Wow sounds like something isn't going right and trying to stick the blame elsewhere ...

[daemonic]

Is anyone else seeing any similar issues to the below with their board?

Mine is 62-0018 updated to rev 1.3; Ive also tried 2 different machines and multiple different usb leads, all of which seem to give similar results;

(All excerpts below are from latest git MPBM with ebereon's Cairnsmore worker.)

For starters my job intervals seem way off compared to the likes of ebereon's previously posted.

shipping_test.bit (DIP's setup as per shipping_test.pdf)
 Permanent Flash;

Code:

  CM1: Running at 24.803891 MH/s
  CM1: Job interval: 47.000000 seconds
  CM2: Running at 24.803891 MH/s
  CM2: Job interval: 47.000000 seconds

twin_test.bit (DIP's setup as per twin_test.pdf)
 Temporary Flash

Code:

  CM1: Running at 182.715256 MH/s
  CM1: Job interval: 17.805074 seconds
  CM2: Running at 181.279004 MH/s
  CM2: Job interval: 17.954064 seconds

 Notes
   CM2 (FPGA3) gets 50-70% less shares than CM1 (FPGA0) (Average Utility of 1.4-1.5 & 0.8-0.9)
   Also quite a few of the following errors on both FPGA's

Code:

    Watchdog triggered: 27276.511018 MHashes without share

Permanent Flash;

Code:

  CM1: Running at 185.160183 MH/s
  CM1: Job interval: 17.556764 seconds
  CM2: Running at 185.160183 MH/s
  CM2: Job interval: 17.556764 seconds

 Notes
   CM2 (FPGA3) gets 50-70% less shares than CM1 (FPGA0) (Average Utility of 1.4-1.5 & 0.8-0.9)
   Also quite a few of the following errors on both FPGA's
    Watchdog triggered: 27276.511018 MHashes without share

190M_V3.bit (DIP's setup as per twin_test.pdf)
 Temporary Flash

Code:

  CM2: Running at 180.333944 MH/s
  CM2: Job interval: 18.053395 seconds
  CM1: Running at 180.333944 MH/s
  CM1: Job interval: 18.053395 seconds

 Notes
   First few shares ok, then;

Code:

   CM1: Got K-not-zero share eed4cb24
   CM1: Got K-not-zero share c1842661
   CM2: Got K-not-zero share 8c318943
   CM2: Got K-not-zero share 2fc4854e

Permanent Flash
  Not even detected

200M_BETA.bit (DIP's setup as per twin_test.pdf)
 Temporary Flash
  Not even detected
 Permanent Flash
  Not even detected

I know we're not at full potential, and no sign of any full potential yet, but id at least like to get this one board working ok before i dump a load more cash into more boards

[wildemagic]

Wow sounds like something isn't going right and trying to stick the blame elsewhere ...

Indeed, especially with Yohan's hostile reactions I would presume there is something really wrong with the hardware.

This has been confirmed by the multitude of different customers with identical devices reporting all sorts of issues.
I doubt a new bitstream is going to cure what clearly appears to be hardware deficiencies.

I do hope they get things sorted out as the hardware looks really good, potentially with a good bitstream it might be one of the best fpga offerings.

BUT, now that the price has been jacked up and things are still far from optimal, other designs are looking superior.

kind regards

[LazyOtto]

now that the price has been jacked up

I was quite surprised by that announcement. I have seen no proof that there is a way to currently get, at least, 800mh/s out of these things. With the new price structure and basically a statement of "trust us, we'll make it right" they have now placed themselves essentially in the same position of a notable other seller of mining hardware.

[LazyOtto]

On the other hand, however, perhaps they have a proven solution 'in hand' and need to announce the price increase before the solution lest they get flooded with orders at the 'at cost' / 'at a loss' price point.

[ebereon]

shipping_test.bit (DIP's setup as per shipping_test.pdf)
 Permanent Flash;

Code:

  CM1: Running at 24.803891 MH/s
  CM1: Job interval: 47.000000 seconds
  CM2: Running at 24.803891 MH/s
  CM2: Job interval: 47.000000 seconds

These number are incorrect with my worker. My worker is only correct for the 190Mh bitstreams (SW6#1 off!). The interval that is detected is wrong here also. For shipping bitstream please use the icarus worker, it should show correct numbers.

twin_test.bit (DIP's setup as per twin_test.pdf)
 Temporary Flash

Code:

  CM1: Running at 182.715256 MH/s
  CM1: Job interval: 17.805074 seconds
  CM2: Running at 181.279004 MH/s
  CM2: Job interval: 17.954064 seconds

 Notes
   CM2 (FPGA3) gets 50-70% less shares than CM1 (FPGA0) (Average Utility of 1.4-1.5 & 0.8-0.9)
   Also quite a few of the following errors on both FPGA's

Code:

    Watchdog triggered: 27276.511018 MHashes without share

Permanent Flash;

Code:

  CM1: Running at 185.160183 MH/s
  CM1: Job interval: 17.556764 seconds
  CM2: Running at 185.160183 MH/s
  CM2: Job interval: 17.556764 seconds

 Notes
   CM2 (FPGA3) gets 50-70% less shares than CM1 (FPGA0) (Average Utility of 1.4-1.5 & 0.8-0.9)
   Also quite a few of the following errors on both FPGA's
    Watchdog triggered: 27276.511018 MHashes without share

The detected Mh/s is completly different each start of the worker, but after some seconds it will show you the correct Mh/s in the website of mpbm.
The Watchdog message come from my changes in the timings, the original timings wait ~3 times longer until it restarts the worker. It could be realy normal to get that message from time to time. But if you can watch the LED's and if you get the message when the orange LED is turned on, you will notice that then it turn off. this is the behavor I had on my board#0015. And my shorten timings make sure the board don't have the orange LED (no work/job) to long.

190M_V3.bit (DIP's setup as per twin_test.pdf)
 Temporary Flash

Code:

  CM2: Running at 180.333944 MH/s
  CM2: Job interval: 18.053395 seconds
  CM1: Running at 180.333944 MH/s
  CM1: Job interval: 18.053395 seconds

 Notes
   First few shares ok, then;

Code:

   CM1: Got K-not-zero share eed4cb24
   CM1: Got K-not-zero share c1842661
   CM2: Got K-not-zero share 8c318943
   CM2: Got K-not-zero share 2fc4854e

Permanent Flash
  Not even detected

200M_BETA.bit (DIP's setup as per twin_test.pdf)
 Temporary Flash
  Not even detected
 Permanent Flash
  Not even detected

I know we're not at full potential, and no sign of any full potential yet, but id at least like to get this one board working ok before i dump a load more cash into more boards

Please take a look at the mpbm webconfiguration, the interessting part are the invalid shares, they must be realy high on your board or the Watchdog messages come really often (orange LED turn on very often).

eb

[yohan]

Wow sounds like something isn't going right and trying to stick the blame elsewhere ...

Indeed, especially with Yohan's hostile reactions I would presume there is something really wrong with the hardware.

This has been confirmed by the multitude of different customers with identical devices reporting all sorts of issues.
I doubt a new bitstream is going to cure what clearly appears to be hardware deficiencies.

I do hope they get things sorted out as the hardware looks really good, potentially with a good bitstream it might be one of the best fpga offerings.

BUT, now that the price has been jacked up and things are still far from optimal, other designs are looking superior.

kind regards

Actually what I don't like about you posts is that you have nothing useful to either us or other customers to add and just seem to trolling and making the tread even harder to follow.

I have absolutely no problem with genuine customers posting grievances here but I would also like the same information passed to our support email so we can try and sort out issues. Our support mechanism runs mainly on that not on this forum thread. The team simply don't the time to read the thread and get anything done. I will attempt to pass information accross the gap but I don't have infinate time to do it and it's very easy to miss something when the tread is busy or cluttered. I'm also not an expert in everything and that can mean I don't necessarily have a full understanding to always convey problems accurately to the team. I have said previously that we will talk about any problem or design flaw and that continues to be the case.

I also don't have problem with customers and knowledgeable people spreading useful information that improves things for customers. Our own support mechanism can't cope with all possibilities platforms, OSs and software.

There are no major hardware design problems quite the contrary. Given the aggressive development cycle we now have a very good design for the purpose. There are probably a small percentage of genuine hardware faults (we need to see boards to confirm) and we have extended and intensified our board testing to try and catch any future ones before they leave us to go to customers. The last thing we want is customers recieving faulty boards. We are swapping out any faulty boards as fast as we can after we try and do some level of diagnostic with the customer to try understand the problem and to try and identify if it is likely to be hardware or software. This is also part of our development process that we understand problems and if there are any holes in our hardware test strategy we improve the testing. We can't even hope to model all environmental circumstances customers have in our testing but we can certainly always make it better. Once we have a few "faulty" boards back in the lab we will look further to see what problems they do have and learn from that.

To third party software I wasn't blaming everything on those items and I recognise the hard work many people put into these items. It was merely a statement of fact. However it is a fact of life that there are previously undetected bugs or new ones that occur with OS updates or even new bugs that peculiar to a individual customer setup. We don't have test suites for all possible combinations out there and we can't stop the roll of OS updates, driver updates, and new hardware platforms but it is something that we have to try and deal with. It all takes time to work with. In this initial phase we have tried limit the possibilities we have to deal with by say initially just supporting CGminer and not actively supporting ETs bitstream. That is only a recognition that we have a finite sized team to deal with issues and there is only 24 hours in any one day. It is also a fact that the more support work we do the less progress we make with new things. It is the same people doing the work.Last weerk we did a lot of support work and didn't make much progress on new things like the bitstream. This week we will try and move the balance a little more to new development items.

Pricing we said we would hold until end of June initially and then we have extended up to now. It may be that ET's bitstream isn't working and we might be wrong in that change based on that. We are not actively involved on that development so only know a limited amount. But it is no real effect on existing customers so you are not being asked for more money on existing orders. We do need to change pricing at some point to cover our costs in supporting this product. If we don't cover our costs or make some small profit there is absolutely no reason to be in the Bitcoin market. There is after all a legal obligation here to make a return for our shareholders not a loss. Thatr's a commercial fact of life. You can argue whether the new pricing is justifable for your ROI but there is no obligation to buy from us and you can buy competitor kit if that is what you want to do. The market will prevail in this respect.

[julz]

The only place we might be seen to be at fault in my view is finishing our bitstream and not getting the Icarus replication quite perfect. The bitstream is a couple of weeks behind schedule but does have great promise.

All I can say is that we sold this product as a concept going into a development program and it is exactly that. I don't think we could have been clearer on that to potential customers ...

Hi Yohan,
I think you could have been a bit clearer on this. I may have been a bit rash in buying this, but it was described as a board 'specifically for Bitcoin' - and I guess it wasn't in my expectations that I'd need to closely follow a 68+ page thread on the forum to know the state of things. Perhaps because I have only been checking a couple of times a week - I'm still not clear about what the board is currently capable of nor how to achieve it.

Currently I'm running mine stock at around 100MH because the processes for eeking out a bit more looked pretty problematic, and nowhere near the target 800MH yet anyway as far as I could see.
As it stands I don't know if I'm supposed to be monitoring the page at http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/cairnsmore/cairnsmore1.html, this thread,  or some other thread for a completely 3rd party bitstream solution (??)

[LazyOtto]

...
Pricing we said we would hold until end of June initially and then we have extended up to now. It may be that ET's bitstream isn't working and we might be wrong in that change based on that. We are not actively involved on that development so only know a limited amount. But it is no real effect on existing customers so you are not being asked for more money on existing orders. We do need to change pricing at some point to cover our costs in supporting this product.
...

"Pricing we said we would hold until end of June initially"
True.

My guess is that what surprises some people is the subsequent statement, IIRC, was that the original pricing would hold until a proven 800mh/s performance level was reached on the shipping hardware.

IMO, some see that as a statement / commitment which has not been honored.

Of course, please correct me if such a subsequent statement was never made.

[yohan]

The only place we might be seen to be at fault in my view is finishing our bitstream and not getting the Icarus replication quite perfect. The bitstream is a couple of weeks behind schedule but does have great promise.

All I can say is that we sold this product as a concept going into a development program and it is exactly that. I don't think we could have been clearer on that to potential customers ...

Hi Yohan,
I think you could have been a bit clearer on this. I may have been a bit rash in buying this, but it was described as a board 'specifically for Bitcoin' - and I guess it wasn't in my expectations that I'd need to closely follow a 68+ page thread on the forum to know the state of things. Perhaps because I have only been checking a couple of times a week - I'm still not clear about what the board is currently capable of nor how to achieve it.

Currently I'm running mine stock at around 100MH because the processes for eeking out a bit more looked pretty problematic, and nowhere near the target 800MH yet anyway as far as I could see.
As it stands I don't know if I'm supposed to be monitoring the page at http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/cairnsmore/cairnsmore1.html, this thread,  or some other thread for a completely 3rd party bitstream solution (??)

The very first post of this thread has this and I don't think this has been materially changed since the thread started..

We have listened to your comments on Merrick6 (see other thread) and are going to create a board specifically for Bitcoin with 4 XC6SLX150-2FGGG484C FPGAs. The price guaranteed until the end of June 2012 is GBP £400 / USD 640 / 520 Euros (plus tax and shipping). We are selling at the cost to manufacture price until we do the work of benchmarking it and check it working with the Bitcoin interface software. After we complete the benchmarking/software work the price will increase by 50% to cover our costs in doing this work and general support.

To get the initial price we need to receive an order before the end of June. You price and order will be confirmed to you by email. We may extend this offer at our sole discretion. Payment will be by PayPal or by bank transfer.

Prices are based on current exchange rates or staying within 5% of current rates.

We will accept pre-orders on the basis that no money will be charged until your board is ready to ship. We reserve the right not to sell to any person or organisation and/or to ask for more information in respect of and for export control. To pre order send an email to bitcoin AT enterpoint DOT co DOT uk with address and contact details.

UK shipping cost is £8 + VAT. EEC 32€ + VAT, US $40. Please ask for other places.

Local duties and any applying taxes will be charged direct to you by courier. For UK and EEC we will charge UK VAT unless you are VAT registered in your country (not UK).

We expect to complete the design for this board by the 1st of May 2012. We will show some CAD images of the board then. First production boards will ship towards the end of May although some lucky people may get them earlier. I will announce image availability on this forum.

The spec of the board is as follows:

FPGA - 4 x XC6SLX150-2FGG484C
Heatsinks - stick on or clip on supplied with single 12cm fan(with mount pillars) to blow over all
Size - approximately 15cm x 15cm.
Programming - with our Prog3 cable (£50/$80/65€) or similar. We may add this interface into board as standard.
Data transfer - FT4232 USB interface. Each FPGA has a port.
PCB - 4-8 layer
Power input - 12V from Jack or disk drive (Molex)
SPI Flash - We will have local FPGA image storage so you don't need to JTAG load every time.
Clock - single oscillator or clock generator.
Core voltage - 4 regulators each 12A

There is no performance specification on the Cairnsmore1 website pages as far as I remember or every has been and all we have talked about in terms of performance that we expect to attain is somewhere in this thread.

As to your specific performance issues have you sent an email to Enterpoint outlining the problem. If we have missed that I do apologise and do send it again to us. We can't fix what we don't know about. You might have a hardware fault or there might be something else causing you an issue so tell us about it. We are slowly working our way through support items as best we can and we will take action based on a custom need.

There is something about 700-800 MH/s and the price switch somewhere in this thread. I probably said also at our discretion. I'll struggle to find that now and by all means do quote what I actually said. But it's a fact that it is our choice what we sell a product at and when we change prices. It's not like we didn't warn that there would be a price change. That was said on day1 in the first post.

[LazyOtto]

"The second decision is that until the we reach 800 MH/s on Cairnsmore1 the offer price will be available for any new orders. The 800 MH/s performance can be by any available bitstream and that changeover is at our sole discretion."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78239.msg973986#msg973986

[LazyOtto]

BTW, yohan, it is really not my intent to bust your balls about this.

IMO, you / Enterpoint have been vastly more upfront in communications than 'that other company'.

I'm merely trying to keep the story straight.