Cointerra AIRE Miner 16nm PreOrder

[dogie]

Yes, investors are very important, that's why reputation is a main factor for mining business today.. One look at Dogie's rating will enough for investor won't give even a dollar to Cointerra.
What about 21e6? They are in the Unknown group by Organofcorti statistics, aren't they?

i dont think anyone in the real world takes dogie's (biassed and inaccurate) ratings too seriously.  there's few ratings there that can be substantiated given the facts and his ratings are very openly based on emotion and anecdote rather than actual data.  ive tried to work with him on improving the accuracy but reality doesnt seem too important and he's not able to take input nor criticism from anyone else (certainly not me).  im sure its also a coincidence that several of the companies that paid him (in cash or kind) to write a guide for them may have scored better in his ratings than they deserve.

as for 21e6, rumours are theyve raised a significant amount of cash from silicon valley investors...  and are now working on their third chip... (apparently the other two werent especially competitive).  im sure they're mining so they must be in the unknown category, as you say.

Actually it was you who wanted me to downvote companies across the board for personal transactions you'd had with them, not me. I set up a numerical criteria system so I don't have control over the ratings.

[1714024231]

1714024231

[aerobatic]

Yes, investors are very important, that's why reputation is a main factor for mining business today.. One look at Dogie's rating will enough for investor won't give even a dollar to Cointerra.
What about 21e6? They are in the Unknown group by Organofcorti statistics, aren't they?

i dont think anyone in the real world takes dogie's (biassed and inaccurate) ratings too seriously.  there's few ratings there that can be substantiated given the facts and his ratings are very openly based on emotion and anecdote rather than actual data.  ive tried to work with him on improving the accuracy but reality doesnt seem too important and he's not able to take input nor criticism from anyone else (certainly not me).  im sure its also a coincidence that several of the companies that paid him (in cash or kind) to write a guide for them may have scored better in his ratings than they deserve.

as for 21e6, rumours are theyve raised a significant amount of cash from silicon valley investors...  and are now working on their third chip... (apparently the other two werent especially competitive).  im sure they're mining so they must be in the unknown category, as you say.

Actually it was you who wanted me to downvote companies across the board for personal transactions you'd had with them, not me. I set up a numerical criteria system so I don't have control over the ratings.

thats incorrect.

i wrote to you that you were fictionally applying your numeric assessments in an incorrect way.  you had come up with a rating system and then making up the numbers.

you pretend you've got a numeric rating system that can't be cheated, yet many of the numbers that you put into the boxes are your personal and emotional decision and bear no basis in fact.

and you don't take input nor criticism from anyone else.  your rating system is Yours, and yours to make up the numbers and you alone.

i was just trying to inject some reality into it.

for instance, you STILL to this day, maintain that bitfury has 'ethics score of F =  8 points' because they have a small mine (really!!!!?).   Had you not been biassed (or is it just blind?) the real score would've been 'FF, because they have the largest private mine in existence, dwarfing everyone else's... and a score of FF would've scored them -4 instead of 8 according to your own ratings... but no, youre not interested in facts or reality.  you just make up the scores and numbers as you go along and then pretend that because they're just numbers they can't possibly be cheated.  But you're the cheat.  You've come up with the ratings to put them in order, and then you've manipulated the numbers to have the ratings come out how you want.  its plain for all to see.  it doesn't pass any scrutiny at all.

By contrast, KnCMiner, you have scored as ethics F O , which is a huge private mine (-4 points).

Does it even matter to you that KnCMiner's mine is significantly smaller than BitFury's yet your scoring system has it the other way around?

This is just pure bias and emotion -  ignoring the facts.  its a terrible ratings system, Dogie, because its only You and there's no objectivity in it at all.

[dogie]

I'll pick out the bits which actually have content in to respond. I'd prefer we did this in one of my threads in the future as its OT here, but I have to refute your claims.

for instance, you STILL to this day, maintain that bitfury has 'ethics score of F =  8 points' because they have a small mine (really!!!!?).   Had you not been biassed (or is it just blind?) the real score would've been 'FF, because they have the largest private mine in existence, dwarfing everyone else's... and a score of FF would've scored them -4 instead of 8 according to your own ratings

FF was removed from everyone, its no longer used. KNCMiner had the original FF because they specifically said they wouldn't mine against customers in a large fashion, then absolutely demolished that promise.

manipulated the numbers to have the ratings come out how you want

Manipulated the numbers positively and negatively against two companies I have no relation with - hmmm. And those 2 point 'manipulations' on a 100 point system, damn I'm a bad boy today.

By contrast, KnCMiner, you have scored as ethics F O , which is a huge private mine (-4 points). Does it even matter to you that KnCMiner's mine is significantly smaller than BitFury's yet your scoring system has it the other way around?

No, its not. F = Operates own mining farm = -2 and O = Other generic unethical behaviour = -5. Nothing about size of farms here.

This is just pure bias and emotion -  ignoring the facts.  its a terrible ratings system, Dogie, because its only You and there's no objectivity in it at all.

The evidence you've provided is irrefutable, you got me. But in all seriousness, you've said nothing that suggests I've manipulated the ratings or I have any personal or emotional attachment to the two companies you've stated. On the other foot, your post history suggests you are extremely supportive of Cointerra, and are annoyed that they have a low (rightful) rating.

[aerobatic]

I'll pick out the bits which actually have content in to respond. I'd prefer we did this in one of my threads in the future as its OT here, but I have to refute your claims.

for instance, you STILL to this day, maintain that bitfury has 'ethics score of F =  8 points' because they have a small mine (really!!!!?).   Had you not been biassed (or is it just blind?) the real score would've been 'FF, because they have the largest private mine in existence, dwarfing everyone else's... and a score of FF would've scored them -4 instead of 8 according to your own ratings

FF was removed from everyone, its no longer used. KNCMiner had the original FF because they specifically said they wouldn't mine against customers in a large fashion, then absolutely demolished that promise.

manipulated the numbers to have the ratings come out how you want

Manipulated the numbers positively and negatively against two companies I have no relation with - hmmm. And those 2 point 'manipulations' on a 100 point system, damn I'm a bad boy today.

By contrast, KnCMiner, you have scored as ethics F O , which is a huge private mine (-4 points). Does it even matter to you that KnCMiner's mine is significantly smaller than BitFury's yet your scoring system has it the other way around?

No, its not. F = Operates own mining farm = -2 and O = Other generic unethical behaviour = -5. Nothing about size of farms here.

This is just pure bias and emotion -  ignoring the facts.  its a terrible ratings system, Dogie, because its only You and there's no objectivity in it at all.

The evidence you've provided is irrefutable, you got me. But in all seriousness, you've said nothing that suggests I've manipulated the ratings or I have any personal or emotional attachment to the two companies you've stated. On the other foot, your post history suggests you are extremely supportive of Cointerra, and are annoyed that they have a low (rightful) rating.

for ease of demonstration i gave just one example of a glaring error in your ratings system.  There are many.   i could go through every line and show that most of the numbers are fabricated to suit your choice of which companies go where.

[dogie]

for ease of demonstration i gave just one example of a glaring error in your ratings system.  There are many.   i could go through every line and show that most of the numbers are fabricated to suit your choice of which companies go where.

An 'example' which turned out to be you not reading the criteria and blaming that on me, nice.

[aerobatic]

for ease of demonstration i gave just one example of a glaring error in your ratings system.  There are many.   i could go through every line and show that most of the numbers are fabricated to suit your choice of which companies go where.

An 'example' which turned out to be you not reading the criteria and blaming that on me, nice.

no, I've proven one example where your exact criteria is very explicit and where you've deliberately chosen the wrong numbers to make one company score higher than it should and another score lower than it should.

you've already admitted 'i got you' and that i was right, but will you fix it in your chart?  of course not.  because you never let the facts get in the way of your scores being absolutely your decision.

in that particiular example, bitfury would've scored -4 instead of 8.  thats a 12 point difference, taking their score from 92 to 80.  that would take them from position number 1 in the chart to position number, er, 8?    you see, it makes a huge difference to your chart.   its not a minor error of a bad doggie who should wag a finger.  its a MAJOR change in position of the top rated company in your list, simply because you've arbitrarily doled out the numbers in the way you see fit rather than relying on the facts.

as i said, you can go through every single line in your ratings system and find HUGE errors that amount to deliberate manipulation of the figures.  the entire ratings system is YOUR fabrication.

[dogie]

for ease of demonstration i gave just one example of a glaring error in your ratings system.  There are many.   i could go through every line and show that most of the numbers are fabricated to suit your choice of which companies go where.

An 'example' which turned out to be you not reading the criteria and blaming that on me, nice.

no, I've proven one example where your exact criteria is very explicit and where you've deliberately chosen the wrong numbers to make one company score higher than it should and another score lower than it should.

you've already admitted 'i got you' and that i was right, but will you fix it in your chart?  of course not.  because you never let the facts get in the way of your scores being absolutely your decision.

in that particiular example, bitfury would've scored -4 instead of 8.  thats a 12 point difference, taking their score from 92 to 80.  that would take them from position number 1 in the chart to position number, er, 8?    you see, it makes a huge difference to your chart.   its not a minor error of a bad doggie who should wag a finger.  its a MAJOR change in position of the top rated company in your list, simply because you've arbitrarily doled out the numbers in the way you see fit rather than relying on the facts.

as i said, you can go through every single line in your ratings system and find HUGE errors that amount to deliberate manipulation of the figures.  the entire ratings system is YOUR fabrication.

Confirmed, you can't read.

1) As I've said twice already now, there is no FF ratings any more.
2) No, you didn't 'get me', I was mocking you. Everything you said was absolutely wrong - as you'd see if you actually bothered to read the rating criteria.
3) Oh dear, how would a company score -4 on a scale of 1 to 10?
4) Not only are you making mistakes, but then you're repeating them again and again and again as if you know what you're talking about.

[brontosaurus]

Gentlemen,

Much though I'm sure the forum readers are enjoying seeing two members have a go at one another, your disagreement certainly confirms what most technical professional know about any kind of product evaluation - it should be carried out by properly qualified, paid third parties who have no bias in their measurement criteria and can maintain objectivity.

Unfortunately the world doesn't always work that way, but I for one have always found it rather unsettling that mining rig manufacturers find it necessary to submit products to forum member(s) for evaluation - and hopefully endorsement. It's unprofessional and exemplifies the amateur attitude  of most of the rig companies. There are plenty of companies they could go to and pay to get a proper engineering evaluation done, and the results might be surprising as there would be no biases.

Look at the car market - you get dyed in the wool journalists who will never criticise their favourite manufacturer, even if they make a real dog. On UK TV we have a program called Top Gear hosted by a obnoxious oaf called Jeremy Clarkson who will never, ever admit that anyone can make a better sportscar than Ferrari, despite clear evidence to the contrary. They (Ferrari ) treat him like royalty, and he repays them in spades.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the bias shown to Cointerra in the forums, admittedly mostly due to their previously appalling customer service, means that probably they'll never again get a truly objective view taken of their business by any forum member.

Objectivity goes out the window in both these cases, and that's why product evaluations and comparisons should be done by independents like the UK's Which? organisation or JD Power, leaving technical testing to properly qualified, independent experts.

Aerobatic has never tried to hide his investment in Cointerra and probably feels that they have been unfairly criticised. He's a very articulate and clearly thoughtful person who believes the in the company and was willing to put his hand in his pocket as a result. I personally enjoy reading his input to the forums and if he's complaining about something it's usually for good reasons.

[aerobatic]

Confirmed, you can't read.

1) As I've said twice already now, there is no FF ratings any more.
2) No, you didn't 'get me', I was mocking you. Everything you said was absolutely wrong - as you'd see if you actually bothered to read the rating criteria.
3) Oh dear, how would a company score -4 on a scale of 1 to 10?
4) Not only are you making mistakes, but then you're repeating them again and again and again as if you know what you're talking about.

1)  I read it on your guide page.  its listed as your criteria under the 'Ethics' section and clearly has F for large mine and FF for very large mine.  its still there right now.   I am only reading what you wrote.  If you decide you don't want to apply your own criteria to the ratings, well, that just underscores what I've been accusing you of - that you come up with the scores that You Want.  and you don't let the facts get in the way.   Your scores are arbitrary at best, and biassed at worst.

2.  Great, go ahead and mock me.   Your defensiveness and mocking anyone you disagree with shows you can't take criticism.  No surprise, we already know you can't.  I'm not the only one that believes you decide what you want in your guide.  There are competing guides setup to try and bring additional perspectives to the issue (Bick etc).

3.  your scoring system isn't exactly easy to understand. i may have read that one wrong and i admit it.  I should've added -4 to 10, and not used -4 absolutely.  But the principle I'm highlighting remains the same.  that you decide what the score is yourself, independent of your published criteria.  You choose to ignore the criteria whenever it suits you and add an element of your own interpretation to it.  This is far from scientific.  It is, and always has been mostly your opinions, dressed up as a numeric score.

4.  Yes, you ignored them months ago when i first highlighted them to you - privately in an email - and you said you wouldn't deal with it til i published it on the forum.   Then i did that, and you still did nothing, despite me bringing several factual errors to light.   You cannot admit that you've made some mistakes in your charts.   You're incapable of taking criticism or input from anyone else.

and in the example i gave, I'm not accusing you of bias.   But in general i am.  You take payment, either in cash or in kind from bitcoin mining hardware companies.  And you can't claim it doesn't influence you.  If you wanted to be impartial you should not take inducements nor incentives from bitcoin mining companies.    Its wrong !

clearly, we're never going to agree.

-- Jez

ps.  thanks bronto for the kind note

[Bicknellski]

Objectivity goes out the window in both these cases, and that's why product evaluations and comparisons should be done by independents like the UK's Which? organisation or JD Power, leaving technical testing to properly qualified, independent experts.

Here, here.

And that is clearly not going to happen in bitcointalk or with asic fabricators given the low volume of product produced.

The only alternative is for people to read the forums and find consumer feedback and assess what is likely to be the best company to deal with. Then again who knows if the next miner out off the production line is a dog or not.

Also when people avoid break even numbers and questions about cost vs return you might want to avoid listening to those people. Given the nature of mining now everything is "lottery-machine" unless you are building it yourself and have the money to build larger farms. If you are taking money to promote a fabricator then the community should rightly look at your commentary with the knowledge your "ratings" are bias based on that fact alone. Be safe out there people.

Don't buy from anyone that has burned the community in the past if you can purchase today from a reputable fabricator. Know that your investment in a machine today, any machine, in small quantities is not going to return you BTC for BTC. If you are buying in $ just buy BTC it is easier and more likely a better long term investment.

CAVEAT EMPTOR!

[Bicknellski]

Didn't Cointerra miss their specifications on their first ASIC? The 28nm TerraMiner IV was sold as a pre-order for a 2TH/s unit... didn't the actual product perform at 1.6 TH/s?

I heard there was quite a high percentage of failures too: units that wouldn't hash.

Now would be a good time for some TerraMiner IV customers to chime in with their experiences.

Given their terrible track record on a mature process like 28nm, the chances look pretty grim that they will deliver 16nm on spec and on deadline. People pre-ordering this product should be prepared for endless delays and excuses for why the miners are not available yet. Wanting a refund once the product is 3 to 6 months late? Sorry, no refunds. Check out the sales terms:
http://cointerra.com/aireminer-terms/

2.         PURCHASES ARE FINAL:

ALL PURCHASES ARE FINAL, NON-CANCELABLE AND NON-REFUNDABLE. NO CANCELLATION OR RESCHEDULING OF ORDERS BY YOU WILL BE ACCEPTED.

FTC rules?

[Sine(X)]

Of course in the ideal world Dogie should be 100% independent from companies money. But we are living in real word where everybody need money. We don't have any proof that Dogie's rating became dependent. We just may believe or not.
Nobody knows who paid Dogie, I read just (from Dogie) about Avalon and Bitmain. After his announced both of these companies lost rating's points. It's fact and we should consider it.

Regarding ethics - I think lie and cheat are much much much more seriously than self mining. If we will count the number of negative comments per user in KNC and Cointerra threads, we'll not have any questions about ratings of these companies.
Why owners of Mercedes factory can't use Mercedes as a car?

So I can't be sure, but I hope and believe that Dogie's rating independent.

[pak13]

I'll pick out the bits which actually have content in to respond. I'd prefer we did this in one of my threads in the future as its OT here, but I have to refute your claims.

for instance, you STILL to this day, maintain that bitfury has 'ethics score of F =  8 points' because they have a small mine (really!!!!?).   Had you not been biassed (or is it just blind?) the real score would've been 'FF, because they have the largest private mine in existence, dwarfing everyone else's... and a score of FF would've scored them -4 instead of 8 according to your own ratings

FF was removed from everyone, its no longer used. KNCMiner had the original FF because they specifically said they wouldn't mine against customers in a large fashion, then absolutely demolished that promise.

manipulated the numbers to have the ratings come out how you want

Manipulated the numbers positively and negatively against two companies I have no relation with - hmmm. And those 2 point 'manipulations' on a 100 point system, damn I'm a bad boy today.

By contrast, KnCMiner, you have scored as ethics F O , which is a huge private mine (-4 points). Does it even matter to you that KnCMiner's mine is significantly smaller than BitFury's yet your scoring system has it the other way around?

This is just pure bias and emotion -  ignoring the facts.  its a terrible ratings system, Dogie, because its only You and there's no objectivity in it at all.

The evidence you've provided is irrefutable, you got me. But in all seriousness, you've said nothing that suggests I've manipulated the ratings or I have any personal or emotional attachment to the two companies you've stated. On the other foot, your post history suggests you are extremely supportive of Cointerra, and are annoyed that they have a low (rightful) rating.

Dogie you can't run a serious rating system when you are connected to companies in said list. Grow up!

[pak13]

Of course in the ideal world Dogie should be 100% independent from companies money. But we are living in real word where everybody need money. We don't have any proof that Dogie's rating became dependent. We just may believe or not.
Nobody knows who paid Dogie, I read just (from Dogie) about Avalon and Bitmain. After his announced both of these companies lost rating's points. It's fact and we should consider it.

Regarding ethics - I think lie and cheat are much much much more seriously than self mining. If we will count the number of negative comments per user in KNC and Cointerra threads, we'll not have any questions about ratings of these companies.
Why owners of Mercedes factory can't use Mercedes as a car?

So I can't be sure, but I hope and believe that Dogie's rating independent.

It can't be independent when Dogie is paid by companies on his list. Truly independent is off list. Worse still, he has links that he earns commission from. So the more he publishes, the more he gets paid. Click bait.

[Minor Miner]

Of course in the ideal world Dogie should be 100% independent from companies money. But we are living in real word where everybody need money. We don't have any proof that Dogie's rating became dependent. We just may believe or not.
Nobody knows who paid Dogie, I read just (from Dogie) about Avalon and Bitmain. After his announced both of these companies lost rating's points. It's fact and we should consider it.

Regarding ethics - I think lie and cheat are much much much more seriously than self mining. If we will count the number of negative comments per user in KNC and Cointerra threads, we'll not have any questions about ratings of these companies.
Why owners of Mercedes factory can't use Mercedes as a car?

So I can't be sure, but I hope and believe that Dogie's rating independent.

It can't be independent when Dogie is paid by companies on his list. Truly independent is off list. Worse still, he has links that he earns commission from. So the more he publishes, the more he gets paid. Click bait.

It is kind of moot if the price does not rise because surely no one is buying miners right now.

[Fatman3001]

How alive is this company? It just says "out of stock" on the pre-order of Aire. Which is odd. Now, I wasn't planning on a pre-order but if they were shipping I might hold out for a proper order (if their stuff works this time) so any information on their progress would be welcome.

[Unacceptable]

How alive is this company? It just says "out of stock" on the pre-order of Aire. Which is odd. Now, I wasn't planning on a pre-order but if they were shipping I might hold out for a proper order (if their stuff works this time) so any information on their progress would be welcome.

Don't hold your breath,they are scammers.Go with Spoondolies or Bitmain 

[Fatman3001]

Gentlemen,
...
Look at the car market - you get dyed in the wool journalists who will never criticise their favourite manufacturer, even if they make a real dog. On UK TV we have a program called Top Gear hosted by a obnoxious oaf called Jeremy Clarkson who will never, ever admit that anyone can make a better sportscar than Ferrari, despite clear evidence to the contrary. They (Ferrari ) treat him like royalty, and he repays them in spades.
...

Really OT but I can't help myself. If you want "proper" car reviews you can check carbuyer.co.uk or Autocar.

Top Gear is an entertainment program with three presenters/goofballs who, as most car lovers do, have strong emotional ties to certain brands or cars. Jeremy likes Ferrari (although he has admitted certain AMs and Porsches and others to be better than their Ferrari counterparts on several occasions), Richard (like I) likes the 911 and sees no reason why there should be any other Porsche (or any other car for that matter). The third likes tiny crap cars and old luxury barges and complains about stuff that can't be communicated with language.  I can't understand why people get so annoyed by these guys. Yes, Jeremy is an oaf but I have lots of friends who are oafs. And if you don't, you should get some. It's not like you elected him President of the US and let him start a war in Iraq (that would be stupid).

Disclaimer: Jeremy Clarkson knows nothing about politics, the climate, racial relations or gender equality. But he looks like a teapot when he's filling petrol and that's funny.

[Fatman3001]

How alive is this company? It just says "out of stock" on the pre-order of Aire. Which is odd. Now, I wasn't planning on a pre-order but if they were shipping I might hold out for a proper order (if their stuff works this time) so any information on their progress would be welcome.

Don't hold your breath,they are scammers.Go with Spoondolies or Bitmain 

I am. But they don't have a release date for their 14/16nm products.

I think the foundries are starting to realize that bitcoin mining HW manufacturers are the perfect customers for their early batches with new manufacturing processes. They HAVE TO have the newest tech, they don't mind high unit costs and they don't mind low yields. AMD and ARM normally wants more mature processes. So I thought maybe Cointerra had struck a deal to get some fresh tech.

[kingbruce]

I once pre ordered a miner in the early days of mining it took six months by the time I got it I was never going to break even. Best bet is to invest in someone who has mining power to start your first earning. Depending on how much you are ready to make now or later.