BitForce SC - full custom ASIC

[imsaguy]

Communication breakdown...

From BFL? Never..

[1713564941]

1713564941

[sadpandatech]

I like cheese and posting just to sub.. ;p  Not adding my opinion to the mix because it really doesn't matter what the heck I think.  OK, one opinion. No asics for jooo for atleast 5-6 months. And by then it is possible others will have one....



BTW, I noticed they have not posted here yet but there is another 'entity' working on developing their own asic. Atleast one that I know of that has access to the funds to do so. I'd imagine they are not the only ones. Not everyone has need to 'announce' their work until it is ready. And some do develop strictly to try and fulfill a need other than selling a product(Bitfury for example edit; I was not aware they were selling a product when I posted.).


cheers

[1l1l11ll1l]

I just found the BIGGEST scam on the internet.

They TAKE your money and only promise to deliver a product. They are taking your money, in many cases, before they've even developed the prototypes!

SCAM!

(Click at your own risk)

http://www.kickstarter.com/

[Inspector 2211]

I just found the BIGGEST scam on the internet.

They TAKE your money and only promise to deliver a product. They are taking your money, in many cases, before they've even developed the prototypes!

SCAM!

(Click at your own risk)

http://www.kickstarter.com/

If you find that website scary, you'll find this article about it even scarier:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/24/failure-is-not-an-option-why-kickstarter-hides-failed-projects/

[WhitePhantom]

I have a question.  Suppose the network hashing speed climbed to something like 120 TH/s and ASIC miners made up 90% of it.  Would an algo change by the Bitcoin developers be subject to acceptance by more than 50% of the network before it could take place?

[SgtSpike]

I have a question.  Suppose the network hashing speed climbed to something like 120 TH/s and ASIC miners made up 90% of it.  Would an algo change by the Bitcoin developers be subject to acceptance by more than 50% of the network before it could take place?

No.

5% of the network could accept it and continue on.  They'd just be on a different blockchain than everyone else.

Why would you want to change the algo just because ASICs came into play though?  Doing so would be admitting that Bitcoin logic is faulty, that it can never grow large enough to warrant support from investment into ASIC mining, and would ultimately destroy confidence in Bitcoin itself.

[Inaba]

ngzhang did the reverse engineering that showed the single has an FPGA.  The thread is the source of my understanding that BFL claimed to be using an ASIC.

So you're basing your "factual" statements off the flawed and incorrect here-say of others?  Your entire premise is based off 2nd hand information that was never correct to begin with.

Visa operating rules are linked below.  Your experience is common.  I have on more than one occasion successfully collected a refund from a reluctant merchant by citing their failure to ship as a violation of Visa rules.  Charging the same day you ship is a far different matter, and overlooked by the card companies.
http://usa.visa.com/merchants/operations/op_regulations.html

Ok, giving the benefit of the doubt to this argument, which I will concede to, even though every other merchant does the same thing... I don't think BFL accepts MC/Visa, so it's really immaterial, since Visa et al isn't a) making laws or b) able to enforce them.  Especially when they are not involved.

I'm not interested in researching case law for you.  It varies by state and I have lived in some jurisdictions where the law was as I stated.  If I had a dog in this fight I would hire a consumer rights lawyer in the capital city of BFL's state to investigate and possibly file a complaint.  If you really want to know, google or make some phone calls.

You're the one making the claim, so it's on you to prove your claim, not me.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but given your track record of making "factual" statements based off of flawed second hand information, unless you can provide some proof to this claim, it's bunk.  Just because a friend of a friend told you it was law does not make it so.  

[Inaba]

3. Is your system based on FPGA or ASIC technology?

The BitForce processor card is a proprietary implementation of both FPGA and ASIC technology.

I figured this was the quote people were seizing on as "proof" that BFL lied.  Unfortunately, like Entropy's claims, it's flawed.  Nowhere in the FAQ does it say ASIC is used for hashing.  I will grant that it could potentially be construed that way and could have been worded better.  However, the statement as written applies 100% accurately to the BFL Single from a technical perspective.

Having been in ecommerce since the 90s at Amazon and other retailers, I can tell you immediately that you're incorrect on the "literally 99%".  Otherwise, card authorization would be meaningless.  It's not a legal matter, however, as the industry is self-policing.  See PCI, PABP, etc.

From the Visa International Operating Regulations (http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/visa-international-operating-regulations-main.pdf):

For goods to be shipped, a Mail/Phone Order or an Electronic Commerce Merchant may obtain Authorization on any day up to 7 calendar days before the Transaction Date. The Transaction Date is the date the merchandise is shipped. This Authorization is valid if the Transaction amount is within 15% of the authorized amount, provided that the additional amount represents shipping costs.

Charging at time of agreement is permitted in some industries, such as travel.  This may be where you were confused.

So the statement that it's not legal to charge prior to shipment is patently false.  Going further, the statement that it's against MV/Visa policy is also patently false, since it gives a 7 day window.  Now, admittedly BFL is outside that 7 day window, but they aren't taking MC/Visa orders, so again, it's really immaterial what Visa/MC says, as they have no stake in the transaction. 

So we're back to it being "illegal," which no one has yet been able to provide any convincing evidence.  I'm not saying it's not so, but it smells like an armchair lawyer claim to me.

[WhitePhantom]

I have a question.  Suppose the network hashing speed climbed to something like 120 TH/s and ASIC miners made up 90% of it.  Would an algo change by the Bitcoin developers be subject to acceptance by more than 50% of the network before it could take place?

No.

5% of the network could accept it and continue on.  They'd just be on a different blockchain than everyone else.

Why would you want to change the algo just because ASICs came into play though?  Doing so would be admitting that Bitcoin logic is faulty, that it can never grow large enough to warrant support from investment into ASIC mining, and would ultimately destroy confidence in Bitcoin itself.

Reading through posts in this thread, it occurred to me that I didn't know the answer, so curiosity led me to ask.  Personally, I would be very disappointed if the algo was changed.

[N.Olmos]

Here is the link to the FTC rule that governs mail order merchandise shipping.

http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule

What is the Mail or Telephone Order Rule?

The Rule requires that when you advertise merchandise, you must have a reasonable basis for stating or implying that you can ship within a certain time. If you make no shipment statement, you must have a reasonable basis for believing that you can ship within 30 days. That is why direct marketers sometimes call this the "30-day Rule."

If, after taking the customer’s order, you learn that you cannot ship within the time you stated or within 30 days, you must seek the customer’s consent to the delayed shipment. If you cannot obtain the customer’s consent to the delay -- either because it is not a situation in which you are permitted to treat the customer’s silence as consent and the customer has not expressly consented to the delay, or because the customer has expressly refused to consent -- you must, without being asked, promptly refund all the money the customer paid you for the unshipped merchandise.

n.olmos

[||bit]

Seems like a lot of kicking and screaming going on.

[BinaryMage]

Seems like a lot of kicking and screaming going on.

That sentence would apply to the entire forums on most days.

[DiabloD3]

I think the hardware subforum should get a new rule. I am going to ask all the manufacturers to make official product threads, I am going to sticky those threads, and then we, collectively, are going to feel sorry for anyone dumb enough to troll in said official product threads.

What does everyone think?

[Cablez]

Its not a bad idea, as this thread really doesn't need to be 15 pages.

[DILLIGAF]

I think the hardware subforum should get a new rule. I am going to ask all the manufacturers to make official product threads, I am going to sticky those threads, and then we, collectively, are going to feel sorry for anyone dumb enough to troll in said official product threads.

What does everyone think?

Product actually implies you have something at hand to sell if that is a requirement then I am all for it, otherwise it is vaporware until it shows up not an official product..

[rjk]

I think the hardware subforum should get a new rule. I am going to ask all the manufacturers to make official product threads, I am going to sticky those threads, and then we, collectively, are going to feel sorry for anyone dumb enough to troll in said official product threads.

What does everyone think?

Product actually implies you have something at hand to sell if that is a requirement then I am all for it, otherwise it is vaporware until it shows up not an official product..

2/10 One product shipping reduces the vaporware coefficient significantly.

If we did the sticky thing, there would be far too many of them. Not sure of a good way to fix that.

[Beaflag VonRathburg]

Well,CPU's were used to mine first,then came GPU's.I'm sure there were some people who said this was a bad thing.

Then FPGA's started doing the same thing,making GPU's obsolete.Of course it would take quite awhile before they are not worth using,i.e. diff going up becuase of FPGA's.

Now ASIC's are really going put a hurt to those using GPU's,which are what the majority of miners are using.

I think this is where the arguments are coming from,with all the investments in GPU farms going to be worthless before years end.Thats alot of money & time invested going to waste.

It's a shame,but it's called progress................I believe the diff will go up,but as GPU farms start shutting down the diff will level off,where? I have no idea.......

I've been reading this word for word up until recently as it exploded in comments. Speculation about how the SC will turn out is only that, can be nothing more, and until we receive updates I'll make this one post and let people rant on their own merry ways.

The main issue that I see with ASICs is that it is a contradiction in the expansion of the acceptance of bitcoin. Personally, I already think that bitcoin is limited by its complexity and will never be generally accepted. If you are not a miner you are simply looking to use bitcoin to save yourself money on purchasing an item or items. You accept that the added difficulty of acquiring bitcoins to pay for an item will be worth it if it offsets the cost of the item to a a degree you see acceptable. To you the bitcoin market should always balance itself out and the difficulty, added average hashrate, etc... will matter very little to you.

For those of us who mine or have a sizeable investment in current technology, very simply ASICs present a threat that our current equipment will cease to be valuable outside of it's resale value. If many people see their large investments go down the drain will they buy into more technology or will they simply fold and accept their losses? Personally, I have about a 55% investment in GPUs and 45% in FPGAs, but the reality of knowing that I could have flushed about $6k down the drain hit me a little hard. At this point I have burnt through the amount of money I have personally deamed acceptable to invest. If ASICs tank the efficiency of GPUs and FPGAs I will ride my rigs out until they are no longer profitable, sell the rest off accepting a loss, learn something from it.

I believe that many others will go the same way. The mass amount of ATI GPUs already in existance and in people's homes made setting up a mining rig somewhat simple. When, those are no longer profitable do you think people will buy into technology that they have no clue about to continue mining? Setting up a single mining computer in your home with something you already own, hoping to make back some of your investment is completely different then going out to purchase hashing power and hoping you break even at somewhere down the line. At this point in time with the way the market is going and with the reward halving coming up if you are a small time miner I see mining under normal circumstances (ie: pays for power, deals with the added heat, has a normal job) dying off. The rapid expansion of mining companies on GBLSE and increase of technology will eventually kill the ability of your average every day miner to continue to be profitable.

If we want bitcoin to expand and succeed it needs to do so on the backs of generally accepted technology that everyone has access to. One company producing an item that can instantly change the game is the exact opposite of what we need. Bitcoin only has value because we accept it as having value. What happens when bitcoin tanks because 99% of it's previous users can no longer keep up? Do one percent of the large miners become one hundred percent? What happens then, when the value of BTC tanks down to next to nothing? How will you feel when you flushed $1M down the drain?

[BinaryMage]

I think the hardware subforum should get a new rule. I am going to ask all the manufacturers to make official product threads, I am going to sticky those threads, and then we, collectively, are going to feel sorry for anyone dumb enough to troll in said official product threads.

What does everyone think?

I do not think this is prudent. In principle, it works, but in practice we'll just inevitably end up in endless debates over what does or does not count as a "product", whose threads get stickied when an excess of products develops (as it eventually will), etcetera. Every single time you or another mod chooses to sticky a thread, many people would inevitably become infuriated; stating that said product isn't a product, is a scam, isn't verified, "Why isn't my product stickied when this one is?", and the like.

Even if people complained much less than usual, I do not think it would be a good idea to have moderators choosing which products do or do not count. You guys do a wonderful job with no compensation, but regardless, in my opinion, that power/responsibility to stick "official" threads shouldn't be afforded when the choice cannot be easily quantified. (e.g. GH/s with pools)

Manufacturers are welcome to post and lock product announcement/update/order information threads, and update them when and how they so choose. Discussion threads such as this one are mostly useless, but differentiating between serious gripes and FUD/whining isn't always easy and, for similar reasons to the above, shouldn't be the task of any board moderation/administration IMO.

In short, attempting to stop trolling/censor, in euphemistic and dysphemisitic form respectively, would be akin to walking a tightrope of utopian bliss above a gaping maw of chaos, censorship, and eventual destruction. A risk I think we should not take.

[Entropy-uc]

You're the one making the claim, so it's on you to prove your claim, not me.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but given your track record of making "factual" statements based off of flawed second hand information, unless you can provide some proof to this claim, it's bunk.  Just because a friend of a friend told you it was law does not make it so.  

Ok here is one for you:

Does PayPal permit transactions for pre-sale items?

    Pre-sale items are advertised for sale before the seller has the items. Often, these items are sold before they are available to the general public. Or, the seller uses the funds from the sale to purchase the item that has already been sold.
    
    PayPal permits pre-sales on a limited basis, only if the seller guarantees delivery within 20 days from the date of purchase and clearly identifies the item as a pre-sale. PayPal may apply additional conditions, such as proof of the seller's ability to successfully deliver the product: supplier information, purchase invoices, postal information or proof of delivery.

https://www.paypal.com/helpcenter/main.jsp;jsessionid=5BF2PGnW8vHvJD7Nn7c6vZyVCZtqSwlyy9sv8QGJg5gXhh504Ly4!1268435979?locale=en_GB&_dyncharset=UTF-8&countrycode=GB&cmd=_help&serverInstance=9014&t=solutionTab&ft=browseTab&ps=solutionPanels&solutionId=163756&isSrch=Yes

100% Violation of Paypal policy, and BFL does take paypal.

I'm sure further searches on pre-sales will turn up relevant laws.  But I am done with the topic.  Stop trying to attack my credibility and I'll stop posting facts you don't want to hear.

[yochdog]

You're the one making the claim, so it's on you to prove your claim, not me.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but given your track record of making "factual" statements based off of flawed second hand information, unless you can provide some proof to this claim, it's bunk.  Just because a friend of a friend told you it was law does not make it so.  

Ok here is one for you:

Does PayPal permit transactions for pre-sale items?

    Pre-sale items are advertised for sale before the seller has the items. Often, these items are sold before they are available to the general public. Or, the seller uses the funds from the sale to purchase the item that has already been sold.
    
    PayPal permits pre-sales on a limited basis, only if the seller guarantees delivery within 20 days from the date of purchase and clearly identifies the item as a pre-sale. PayPal may apply additional conditions, such as proof of the seller's ability to successfully deliver the product: supplier information, purchase invoices, postal information or proof of delivery.

https://www.paypal.com/helpcenter/main.jsp;jsessionid=5BF2PGnW8vHvJD7Nn7c6vZyVCZtqSwlyy9sv8QGJg5gXhh504Ly4!1268435979?locale=en_GB&_dyncharset=UTF-8&countrycode=GB&cmd=_help&serverInstance=9014&t=solutionTab&ft=browseTab&ps=solutionPanels&solutionId=163756&isSrch=Yes

100% Violation of Paypal policy, and BFL does take paypal.

I'm sure further searches on pre-sales will turn up relevant laws.  But I am done with the topic.  Stop trying to attack my credibility and I'll stop posting facts you don't want to hear.

Now this is interesting.