BFL ASIC is bogus

[ElectricMucus]

Don't you guys remember that the Singles were claimed to contain custom hardware?

It will either turn out to be an exaggerated claim or even a scam.  
inb4 BFL fanboy shitstorm.


anyway just posting that so I can bump it next year with "I told you so."

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

[1714611299]

1714611299

[1714611299]

1714611299

[1714611299]

1714611299

[1714611299]

1714611299

[sadpandatech]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKXlhpeb6wI

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and did not have the funds to develop custom chips.

FTFY ;p

[NothinG]

http://www.altera.com/devices/asic/asic-index.html

[ElectricMucus]

http://www.altera.com/devices/asic/asic-index.html

That's not full custom asic, it's cell "asic" and I even doubt they even get to that level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKXlhpeb6wI

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and did not have the funds to develop custom chips.

FTFY ;p

fool me once.....

[ElectricMucus]

What will you bump with if they turn out to be accurate to the pre-released specs?

That I have proven the Riemann Hypothesis.

[ElectricMucus]

There I some quote about it in a book I have that in order to prove it we must first plant a tree on the moon. (Or something like it)
I know mathematicians have a strange humor. 

[BCbitcoin]

You are forgetting bfl's secret sauce. Turning an altera hardcopy into a full custom asic is easy for them. You just need a bit of sandpaper and no one will be the wiser.

[ElectricMucus]

FPGA designs cannot be easily converted to asics. Altera Hardcopy is the same device as their FPGAs with just a metal layer instead of the routing fabric.
Then there are standard cell asics which can be produced using pre-manufactured masks.
Then there are custom asics which work at the bare silicon level.


Even if they use Hardcopy my prediction would be accurate in that case, it wouldn't be a custom asic. (or even standard cell asic)
And I strongly doubt that what to would be released (if any at all) lives up to the specs.


Already made my point, just repeating the same issues.
Yes they could still claim anything they want, people will find out eventually like with the singles.

[||bit]

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

They do now. 

[ElectricMucus]

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

They do now.  

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.

If you know how the process of semiconductor manufacturing actually works the notation of a BFL custom ASIC is ridiculous.
To get an idea what kind of people pulled this thing off in the past... (Ninja Style ASIC development using selfwritten software), he did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Moore

[||bit]

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

They do now.  

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.

If you know how the process of semiconductor manufacturing actually works the notation of a BFL custom ASIC is ridiculous.
To get an idea what kind of people pulled this thing off in the past... (Ninja Style ASIC development using selfwritten software), he did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Moore

You do make me wonder about their press release. They said they had private venture capital. Which, if your $10 million number is correct, makes it hard to think someone (or some group) would have fronted that kind of money for making bitcoin mining hardware. Unless, we do not see the size of the market well enough. What is it's size?   Anyway, other than that, at least this seems exhaggerated from the BFL press release:

“Butterfly Labs has always considered itself a serious manufacturer in the SHA-256 hardware industry and our customers are leaders in providing hashing services for some of the world’s great technological challenges,” noted Nasser G, BFL CTO. “We see the BitForce SC lineup as the natural next step in continuing to meet our customer's needs.”

What are the 'some' of the 'some of the world’s great technological challenges'?  I wouldn't say that bitcoin mining is even one of the world's great technological challenges. People were doing fine mining with GPU's (even CPU's). Since those two technologies were meeting the purpose of bitcoin mining, there was no real great challenge that needed to be met.  So, they must have done some other work outside of making Singles....  Can anyone (BFL Engineer?) help elucidate what that work was?

||bit

[Gomeler]

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

They do now.  

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.

If you know how the process of semiconductor manufacturing actually works the notation of a BFL custom ASIC is ridiculous.
To get an idea what kind of people pulled this thing off in the past... (Ninja Style ASIC development using selfwritten software), he did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Moore

There have already been threads indicating that a custom ASIC on an older process could be under $1 mil USD. That being said what BFL is advertising sounds a bit too good to be true. I suppose worst case I won't mine for 2-3 months while waiting for BFL to catch up with sales/supply 

[||bit]

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

They do now.  

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.

Another thing that makes the BFL announcement rather
of hard to believe is the very large performance increase
they claim to be able to achieve on an ASIC as compared
to the existing FPGA solutions.

I'd have expected maybe a x3 improvement on - say - the
MH/s/Watts numbers, but the numbers they've announced
are hard to stomach.

I would love for someone really knowledgeable on this topic
(how much more efficient can a chip be made when moving
from FPGA from full custom ASIC).

I had the same initial assumption. It was based on some fast readings comparing FPGA and ASIC performance for similar tasks. The x3 or x4 numbers was what I was lead to think. However, not only has someone on this forum suggested that the performamnce would be orders of x10 to x50 increases from an FPGA to ASIC, but we have to consider the chips final fabric sizes. And there is still the manufacturers option on how many chips to incorporate in each product or submodule. But let's suppose just for discussion that the Jalapeno used just one ASIC chip to attain it's 3.5GH/s. And we know the FPGA Single is about 0.4GH/s per FPGA chip inside it. That means the ASIC would be about x9 faster (if it was just one chip), and consistent with the other forum person's view. So, it's much more than x3 or x4. But making the Jalapeno with just two or three such chips would mean the ASICS are x3 to x4.5 faster than the FPGA Single chips, and consistent with the other notions of performance improvement at hand. --- So,it seems it is possible by either presumed performance change per chip from FPGA to ASIC.

Aside from that, a question that I never followed up on from someone on the forums is about power consumption at those has rates. The Jalapeno, for exmaple is a USB device. How much power is required to generate that 3.5GH/s, and would a USB support it?

||bit

[eldentyrell]

Another thing that makes the BFL announcement rather
of hard to believe is the very large performance increase
they claim to be able to achieve on an ASIC as compared
to the existing FPGA solutions.

I'd have expected maybe a x3 improvement on - say - the
MH/s/Watts numbers, but the numbers they've announced
are hard to stomach.

I would love for someone really knowledgeable on this topic
(how much more efficient can a chip be made when moving
from FPGA from full custom ASIC).

This.

Just taking your FPGA-tested verilog and pushing it through the Synposys tools will usually get you an ASIC with 4x power improvement.

Working really hard to re-do the design from scratch will get you 8x.  Maybe 10x if you have really good engineers.

A 56x improvement in power consumption is just plain absurd.

[||bit]

This.

Just taking your FPGA-tested verilog and pushing it through the Synposys tools will usually get you an ASIC with 4x power improvement.

Working really hard to re-do the design from scratch will get you 8x.  Maybe 10x if you have really good engineers.

A 56x improvement in power consumption is just plain absurd.

Are you seeing anything in the PR that isn't consistent with current technological capability? As far as I can see, the PR hash rates can be accounted for with at least just using more ASIC chips per product.

||bit

[aqrulesms]

This.

Just taking your FPGA-tested verilog and pushing it through the Synposys tools will usually get you an ASIC with 4x power improvement.

Working really hard to re-do the design from scratch will get you 8x.  Maybe 10x if you have really good engineers.

A 56x improvement in power consumption is just plain absurd.

Are you seeing anything in the PR that isn't consistent with current technological capability? As far as I can see, the PR hash rates can be accounted for with at least just using more ASIC chips per product.

||bit

But with that, more power usage.  I doubt a USB can support that much. It barely provides any power at all.

Clearly they're lying in their press release.  They 100% won't be able to reach their performance level indicated.

The most USB 2.0 can handle is about ~2.5 Watts.  USB 3.0 is ~5 watts.

Dedicated can go up to 10 watts but ASIC is not dedicated USB charging.  Data is also fed into the ASIC.

So if the ASIC had the same hash rate as the FPGA single it has an improvement of 16x more than the FPGA at the most. Factor in the hashing, it would have ~64x improvement.

I call BS as well.  Also there's no reason for them to be selling ASICs so cheap in the first place.  It does not make sense business wise.  They will fail and run away with pre order money since Bitcoins are their only payment option and irreversible and not easy to track and crack down in the case of fradulent transactions.

[crazyates]

GDammit can we move this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=81.0

They made that subforum for a reason.

[wildemagic]

...can we move this...

... but, isnt this the BFL forum ? <grins>

kind regards

[||bit]

But with that, more power usage.  I doubt a USB can support that much. It barely provides any power at all.

Clearly they're lying in their press release.  They 100% won't be able to reach their performance level indicated.

The most USB 2.0 can handle is about ~2.5 Watts.  USB 3.0 is ~5 watts.

Dedicated can go up to 10 watts but ASIC is not dedicated USB charging.  Data is also fed into the ASIC.

So if the ASIC had the same hash rate as the FPGA single it has an improvement of 16x more than the FPGA at the most. Factor in the hashing, it would have ~64x improvement.

I call BS as well.  Also there's no reason for them to be selling ASICs so cheap in the first place.  It does not make sense business wise.  They will fail and run away with pre order money since Bitcoins are their only payment option and irreversible and not easy to track and crack down in the case of fradulent transactions.

One reason to sell them cheaper might be to ensure widerspread distribution. Afterall, consolidate all that hashing into the hands of a few is suppose to be bad for bitcoin.
As for them taking only bitcoins, that is not the case. They have taken bank wires, which are traceable.

For now, I'm more interested in the power consumption question. Could ASICs do a double SHA256 hash at 3.5GH/s and be supported by only the power from a single USB port?
Are there any existing SHA256 functions performed by ASIC's that we can find specs on and determine this? This should add the weight to either it being feasability or not.

||bit

[superman3486]

just placed my order on a BFL SC 40GH/s , now just to wait patiently while all my 6990's cook in my basement 

[OmegaNemesis28]

just placed my order on a BFL SC 40GH/s , now just to wait patiently while all my 6990's cook in my basement 

Same boat, almost :3

[punningclan]

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

They do now.  

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.

If you know how the process of semiconductor manufacturing actually works the notation of a BFL custom ASIC is ridiculous.
To get an idea what kind of people pulled this thing off in the past... (Ninja Style ASIC development using selfwritten software), he did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Moore

They're not making a CPU just a random number generator, I'm not sure it gets any simpler than that?

[Coinoisseur]

1) Make incredible claims about your future product promise 1 to 1 trade ins on your currently sold product
2) Point all your PR tools to talking favorably about your future product and minimizing your previous failure to meet pre-release numbers
3) Take peoples $ for future orders, this combined with money not spent due to uncertainty reduces your competitors sales and thus available funds to develop their future products
4) Some profit
5) Plow some of that money into developing something that at least might, perhaps come close to your seat of the pants PR numbers
6) ??
7) More profit

[runeks]

Another thing that makes the BFL announcement rather
hard to believe is the very large performance increase
they claim to be able to achieve on an ASIC as compared
to the existing FPGA solutions.

I'd have expected maybe a x3 improvement on - say - the
MH/s/Watts numbers, but the numbers they've announced
are hard to stomach.

I would love for someone really knowledgeable on this topic
(how much more efficient can a chip be made when moving
from FPGA from full custom ASIC).

Someone has actually already made a chip capable of SHA-256 on an IBM 130nm process:
http://rijndael.ece.vt.edu/sha3/chip/sha3-asic-datasheet.pdf
If I understand the paper correctly, it does 2.95 MH/s (1.51 Gbps / 256 bit / 2) (divided by two because it's double-SHA-256) while consuming 5 mW (0.005 W) running at 50 MHz. So that's about 3 GH/s at 5 W on a 130nm process.

Here's more info: http://rijndael.ece.vt.edu/sha3/sha3chip.html

[MrTeal]

Another thing that makes the BFL announcement rather
hard to believe is the very large performance increase
they claim to be able to achieve on an ASIC as compared
to the existing FPGA solutions.

I'd have expected maybe a x3 improvement on - say - the
MH/s/Watts numbers, but the numbers they've announced
are hard to stomach.

I would love for someone really knowledgeable on this topic
(how much more efficient can a chip be made when moving
from FPGA from full custom ASIC).

Someone has actually already made a chip capable of SHA-256 on an IBM 130nm process:
http://rijndael.ece.vt.edu/sha3/chip/sha3-asic-datasheet.pdf
If I understand the paper correctly, it does 2.95 MH/s (1.51 Gbps / 256 bit / 2) (divided by two because it's double-SHA-256) while consuming 5 mW (0.005 W) running at 50 MHz. So that's about 3 GH/s at 5 W on a 130nm process.

Here's more info: http://rijndael.ece.vt.edu/sha3/sha3chip.html

That shows Tp at the max frequency I think, while the power is at 50MHz. If you look at mJ/Gbit, that's the same as mW/Gbps. 5.18mW given 13.76mJ/Gbit would be 0.374Gbps at 50MHz. That corresponds perfectly with 1.51Gbps@200MHz.

Looking at that paper and comparing areas, it looks like the single round of SHA2 is about 3.4% of the total die size of 5mm^2, or 0.17mm^2. Think about how many rounds of SHA2 you would need at 130nm to get 3.5GH/s.
With a full custom design you'd be able to trim off some fat because you don't need to transmit every hash out, but 3.5GH/s @~5W seems very aggressive.

[sadpandatech]

Another thing that makes the BFL announcement rather
hard to believe is the very large performance increase
they claim to be able to achieve on an ASIC as compared
to the existing FPGA solutions.

I'd have expected maybe a x3 improvement on - say - the
MH/s/Watts numbers, but the numbers they've announced
are hard to stomach.

I would love for someone really knowledgeable on this topic
(how much more efficient can a chip be made when moving
from FPGA from full custom ASIC).

Someone has actually already made a chip capable of SHA-256 on an IBM 130nm process:
http://rijndael.ece.vt.edu/sha3/chip/sha3-asic-datasheet.pdf
If I understand the paper correctly, it does 2.95 MH/s (1.51 Gbps / 256 bit / 2) (divided by two because it's double-SHA-256) while consuming 5 mW (0.005 W) running at 50 MHz. So that's about 3 GH/s at 5 W on a 130nm process.

Here's more info: http://rijndael.ece.vt.edu/sha3/sha3chip.html

That shows Tp at the max frequency I think, while the power is at 50MHz. If you look at mJ/Gbit, that's the same as mW/Gbps. 5.18mW given 13.76mJ/Gbit would be 0.374Gbps at 50MHz. That corresponds perfectly with 1.51Gbps@200MHz.

Looking at that paper and comparing areas, it looks like the single round of SHA2 is about 3.4% of the total die size of 5mm^2, or 0.17mm^2. Think about how many rounds of SHA2 you would need at 130nm to get 3.5GH/s.
With a full custom design you'd be able to trim off some fat because you don't need to transmit every hash out, but 3.5GH/s @~5W seems very aggressive.

1,169.893~ rounds?

[Coinoisseur]

Block size is actually 512 bit so it's basically 1.51 Gbps / 1024 or 1.47 MH/s
Also power goes up in a non-linear fashion as die size and clockspeed increase.

Another thing that makes the BFL announcement rather
hard to believe is the very large performance increase
they claim to be able to achieve on an ASIC as compared
to the existing FPGA solutions.

I'd have expected maybe a x3 improvement on - say - the
MH/s/Watts numbers, but the numbers they've announced
are hard to stomach.

I would love for someone really knowledgeable on this topic
(how much more efficient can a chip be made when moving
from FPGA from full custom ASIC).

Someone has actually already made a chip capable of SHA-256 on an IBM 130nm process:
http://rijndael.ece.vt.edu/sha3/chip/sha3-asic-datasheet.pdf
If I understand the paper correctly, it does 2.95 MH/s (1.51 Gbps / 256 bit / 2) (divided by two because it's double-SHA-256) while consuming 5 mW (0.005 W) running at 50 MHz. So that's about 3 GH/s at 5 W on a 130nm process.

Here's more info: http://rijndael.ece.vt.edu/sha3/sha3chip.html

[runeks]

So if it consumes 13.76 mJ/Gbit and 3.5 GH/s equals 3584 Gbit/s (512 bits block size and two of these because of double SHA-256) then a 3.5 GH/s unit running at 50 MHz would consume 49.3W - without taking into account the added power draw from a die size about ten thousand times (0.374 Gbit/s at 50 MHz vs 3584 Gbit/s) the size of the SHA-3 chip, which would be 1700mm², or 41x41mm?

Now this is 130nm, so if we're optimistic and say they have access to a 28 nm process (is this at least somewhat realistic?), then this could be reduced to 8.8x8.8mm or 78mm². Would anyone venture a guess as to what the reduced power draw from going 120nm to 28nm would be? If it's a factor 10 and, again, we ignore the added power draw from the huge die, then that gets us down to ~5W.

Or is 28nm processes currently only reserved for companies spitting out chips in the tens of millions?

[Coinoisseur]

28nm is not realistic at all, 130nm down to 65nm is most likely by far.

[deepDown]

According to this:  www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/white_papers/wp298.pdf

Going from 130nm to 65 or even 45nm would give you savings at ~40-50%

Hence, the ballpark is 25-50W. No way it is going to be 5W )

if it ever materializes that is.

[arklan]

i wonder what they're back up plan is for the "oh crap we can't meet our stated stats, and we promised..." situation...

[sadpandatech]

i wonder what they're back up plan is for the "oh crap we can't meet our stated stats, and we promised..." situation...

they would probably just point to the obscure statements they like to make that generalize instead of actually making any promises...

[MrTeal]

i wonder what they're back up plan is for the "oh crap we can't meet our stated stats, and we promised..." situation...

they would probably just point to the obscure statements they like to make that generalize instead of actually making any promises...

BFL would never do such a thing.

I really dislike being drawn into these discussions but in this case it's necessary to correct you.  BF Labs has never gone on record claiming it's previous generation processors are pure ASIC.  Never.  Forum members simply came to their own conclusions based on our FAQ (which did not say it was pure ASIC, just left it ambiguous).

[BR0KK]

ill keep asking myself: how could a 2.5 watt coffee warmer keep my Caffein warm? isn't that way to less power?

[AzN1337c0d3r]

ill keep asking myself: how could a 2.5 watt coffee warmer keep my Caffein warm? isn't that way to less power?

Depends on how insulating your coffee mug is =P

To start off, some facts:

A. Specific heat of water is 4.1813 Joules/(grams*Kelvins).
B. 2.5 watts = 2.5 Joules per second.

Now we make 2 assumptions:

1. We assume your coffee is mostly water (most are 98-99%) and that you have 250 mL (1 cup).
2. Your coffee mug is perfectly insulating.

From the volumetric density of water, we know that 250 mL of water has mass of 250g. Crunch the math and that would make it ~1050 J/K.

At 2.5 watts, it would take ~7 minutes just to raise your coffee by 1 degree assuming your coffee mug is perfect. I dont know how that thing is going to keep your coffee appreciably above room temperature if you have to account for heat loss.

[rjk]

Wait, if it's perfectly insulating, how would it let heat through to the liquid?

Also, USB coffee warmers have been around, but can anyone that has tried one let us know whether they work?

[BR0KK]

They work .....and kill your USB Ports :d

[AzN1337c0d3r]

Wait, if it's perfectly insulating, how would it let heat through to the liquid?

Also, USB coffee warmers have been around, but can anyone that has tried one let us know whether they work?

For argument sake let's just say you submerged the ASIC in your coffee =P

Doesn't work according to Amazon for lack of heating power.

[Dargo]

Does anyone *really* care whether the Jalapenos work as coffee warmers or not?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Im going to buy two to keep my feet warm in winter while sitting at the computer 

[smoothie]

Im going to buy two to keep my feet warm in winter while sitting at the computer 

LOL!

[Ilikeham]

I have to admit, I've been a chip fabrication nut for 30 years and I just can't figure out how the hell they can build this within the scope of power they claim. They have (again in my opinion) zero chance at getting access to 45nm or lower wafer starts with this small a market, so that leaves the larger processes only. Given that, the power doesn't add up. Even at 45 I'm thinking the power claims wouldn't add up.

But anyhow, it's put huge uncertainty in the mining market and may have been partially responsible for keeping difficulty down as people eschew the purchases of new hardware either GPU or other.

Guess we'll see.

Anyone taking real bets on this? I'll take a piece of the triumvirate .. that they miss POWER, HASH and DELIVERY DATE claims as they are now.

[nedbert9]

I have to admit, I've been a chip fabrication nut for 30 years and I just can't figure out how the hell they can build this within the scope of power they claim. They have (again in my opinion) zero chance at getting access to 45nm or lower wafer starts with this small a market, so that leaves the larger processes only. Given that, the power doesn't add up. Even at 45 I'm thinking the power claims wouldn't add up.

But anyhow, it's put huge uncertainty in the mining market and may have been partially responsible for keeping difficulty down as people eschew the purchases of new hardware either GPU or other.

Guess we'll see.

Anyone taking real bets on this? I'll take a piece of the triumvirate .. that they miss POWER, HASH and DELIVERY DATE claims as they are now.

Couple of disturbing facts.

In the SC line announcement BFL states that they've only had, "one minor blemish," in their track record which was missing their power and performance claims for the Single.  According to that logic missing the power and performance claim for the SC line would also be a minor issue.

Sadly, a continuous missing of specs only cultivates the desire for alternative vendors.  Only one problem.  No alternative vendor exists at the moment.  There's only so much capital investment in Bitcoin mining and the longer BFL continues to be the only sane choice for mining profitability the less likely other options are to rise.  BFL's comment about free market competition, "Competitors naturally emerge in profitable free markets," glosses over the finer points of Bitcoin mining and proves false under certain conditions.

ASIC would have been a better proposition on multiple fronts if it were community developed.  If profitability post ASIC equalizes to current profitability, a best case scenario IMO, all that has been done is a profit extraction by BFL of Bitcoin mining in return for an increased obsolescence timeline.  If this holds true and the only thing we gained as a community is a lengthened obsolescence curve that is hard to quantify on the bottom line then it would have been just fine, and less costly as a whole, for a community developed ASIC on 90 or even 130nm. 

[ElectricMucus]

Even a 180nm full custom chip would blow away today's fpga solutions and - I am almost certain of that - the actually to be released BFL products (if any).
FYI all those small microcontroller ICs from PIC to AVR to the Parallax Propeller and so on are done in 180nm and they are very competitive.

[Fiyasko]

What will you bump with if they turn out to be accurate to the pre-released specs?

That I have proven the Riemann Hypothesis.

For those who don't know (including me):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis

Im being serious here. I have read that thing twice now, And have no fucking idea what you could use it for/what the hell it is, Could someone graciously explain to me WTF that is?

[ElectricMucus]

What will you bump with if they turn out to be accurate to the pre-released specs?

That I have proven the Riemann Hypothesis.

For those who don't know (including me):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis

Im being serious here. I have read that thing twice now, And have no fucking idea what you could use it for/what the hell it is, Could someone graciously explain to me WTF that is?

tbh I don't quite understand it myself, I've read a book on the subject titled "music of the primes".
It's "uses" are limited, and I don't think there really is something to do with it other than in math. You could for example derive a function to know the exact quantity of prime numbers below some particular value without calculating the primes themselves. (Don't nail me on that though, might be wrong)

[Vorksholk]

I personally think the only thing about the ASIC Jalepeno that isn't going to deliver is the coffee warmer part. The hashing power, as I see it, is possible, but good luck warming a coffee cup on a USB3.0. Espresso maybe?

[ElectricMucus]

I personally think the only thing about the ASIC Jalepeno that isn't going to deliver is the coffee warmer part. The hashing power, as I see it, is possible, but good luck warming a coffee cup on a USB3.0. Espresso maybe?

You'd have to do better than that.
We have gone to great length explaining why we think BFLs numbers are fallacious. So you better address those arguments or at least provide some of your own.

[cablepair]

the speeds BFL posted for their ASIC units are just educated guesses, pure and simple.


Will they offer ASIC based Bitcoin mining hardware?

Probably

Will It Ship in 2012

No Way



The speeds they came up with are just something they pulled out of their asses via mathematical equations, they dont want you to buy products like the modminer quad, x6500, icarus and ztex

they want you to wait for another year for their asic instead of spending money on very profitable fpga's that you can get within weeks

they want to continue their strangle hold on this market (its starting to loosen) so they come up with these lies, give the community something to dream about, people believe their fallacies not because they deliver on all their promises but because they deliver just enough to keep everyone believing.



Don't worry they are not the only people working on ASIC based mining hardware (thank God)

You will know the real thing when you see it , because there will be a working prototype - not just an over inflated BFL design with some hypothetical speeds


stay tuned my friends

[rjk]

the speeds BFL posted for their ASIC units are just educated guesses, pure and simple.


Will they offer ASIC based Bitcoin mining hardware?

Probably

Will It Ship in 2012

No Way



The speeds they came up with are just something they pulled out of their asses via mathematical equations, they dont want you to buy products like the modminer quad, x6500, icarus and ztex

they want you to wait for another year for their asic instead of spending money on very profitable fpga's that you can get within weeks

they want to continue their strangle hold on this market (its starting to loosen) so they come up with these lies, give the community something to dream about, people believe their fallacies not because they deliver on all their promises but because they deliver just enough to keep everyone believing.



Don't worry they are not the only people working on ASIC based mining hardware (thank God)

You will know the real thing when you see it , because there will be a working prototype - not just an over inflated BFL design with some hypothetical speeds


stay tuned my friends

I can understand this sentiment from a common users' perspective, or even perhaps that of someone more learned, but regardless - it isn't anything you as a competitor should be saying in so many words. You have no proof positive or negative of how much work has or has not gone into the design and/or production of said devices, and claiming otherwise is detrimental to your own business as well.

[RoadStress]

the speeds BFL posted for their ASIC units are just educated guesses, pure and simple.


Will they offer ASIC based Bitcoin mining hardware?

Probably

Will It Ship in 2012

No Way



The speeds they came up with are just something they pulled out of their asses via mathematical equations, they dont want you to buy products like the modminer quad, x6500, icarus and ztex

they want you to wait for another year for their asic instead of spending money on very profitable fpga's that you can get within weeks

they want to continue their strangle hold on this market (its starting to loosen) so they come up with these lies, give the community something to dream about, people believe their fallacies not because they deliver on all their promises but because they deliver just enough to keep everyone believing.



Don't worry they are not the only people working on ASIC based mining hardware (thank God)

You will know the real thing when you see it , because there will be a working prototype - not just an over inflated BFL design with some hypothetical speeds


stay tuned my friends

I can understand this sentiment from a common users' perspective, or even perhaps that of someone more learned, but regardless - it isn't anything you as a competitor should be saying in so many words. You have no proof positive or negative of how much work has or has not gone into the design and/or production of said devices, and claiming otherwise is detrimental to your own business as well.

I'm only a reader of this forum, but i must reply here. Thank you rjk for this kind of replies! cablepair if you have no hardproof of what you are claiming then it's my right to say that you have pulled that reply out of your ass. (i'm not a BFL fanboi)

[ElectricMucus]

I'm only a reader of this forum, but i must reply here. Thank you rjk for this kind of replies! cablepair if you have no hardproof of what you are claiming then it's my right to say that you have pulled that reply out of your ass. (i'm not a BFL fanboi)

read up on your trolling techniques.
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Prove_me_wrong

[k9quaint]

I'm only a reader of this forum, ...

That should read that you have signed up for this forum. If you had read it, you would know that the physics don't add up for at least one of BFL's products.

[RoadStress]

I'm only a reader of this forum, ...

That should read that you have signed up for this forum. If you had read it, you would know that the physics don't add up for at least one of BFL's products.

Ok then i will add to my statement that he should be blamed only because he is a competitor on the bitcoin mining hardware market. In all his posts about BFL's ASIC he is really trying to make a point against them. That's what is wrong. If he would have said something like "i don't believe them period" then it's another story.

@ElectricMucus 37 posts and i'm a troll. ok!

[cablepair]

the speeds BFL posted for their ASIC units are just educated guesses, pure and simple.


Will they offer ASIC based Bitcoin mining hardware?

Probably

Will It Ship in 2012

No Way



The speeds they came up with are just something they pulled out of their asses via mathematical equations, they dont want you to buy products like the modminer quad, x6500, icarus and ztex

they want you to wait for another year for their asic instead of spending money on very profitable fpga's that you can get within weeks

they want to continue their strangle hold on this market (its starting to loosen) so they come up with these lies, give the community something to dream about, people believe their fallacies not because they deliver on all their promises but because they deliver just enough to keep everyone believing.



Don't worry they are not the only people working on ASIC based mining hardware (thank God)

You will know the real thing when you see it , because there will be a working prototype - not just an over inflated BFL design with some hypothetical speeds


stay tuned my friends

I can understand this sentiment from a common users' perspective, or even perhaps that of someone more learned, but regardless - it isn't anything you as a competitor should be saying in so many words. You have no proof positive or negative of how much work has or has not gone into the design and/or production of said devices, and claiming otherwise is detrimental to your own business as well.

I'm only a reader of this forum, but i must reply here. Thank you rjk for this kind of replies! cablepair if you have no hardproof of what you are claiming then it's my right to say that you have pulled that reply out of your ass. (i'm not a BFL fanboi)

I made my statements based on BFL's track record and my own extensive and current knowledge of ASIC/sASIC developments in regards to SHA256 processing and of course Bitcoin mining.

It's not hard to get an equation to give you the results you want to have, a prototype is a different story.

[k9quaint]

I'm only a reader of this forum, ...

That should read that you have signed up for this forum. If you had read it, you would know that the physics don't add up for at least one of BFL's products.

Ok then i will add to my statement that he should be blamed only because he is a competitor on the bitcoin mining hardware market. In all his posts about BFL's ASIC he is really trying to make a point against them.

Physics don't care if he is or is not a competitor. That should be irrelevant to the discussion. Either the physics are right, or they are not.
In all threads about BFL's ASICs the posts should make points about BFL ASICs. You should address the criticisms themselves instead of trying to discredit the person posting them.

[Vorksholk]

I personally think the only thing about the ASIC Jalepeno that isn't going to deliver is the coffee warmer part. The hashing power, as I see it, is possible, but good luck warming a coffee cup on a USB3.0. Espresso maybe?

You'd have to do better than that.
We have gone to great length explaining why we think BFLs numbers are fallacious. So you better address those arguments or at least provide some of your own.

Basically as said before, they could be using multiple chips, each chip with only a 3-5x performance increase over FPGA, which seems logical and perfectly possible in an ASIC. 5W may seem pretty hopeful, but I bet they can pull it off. ASIC chips can, as I've heard, deal with pretty high temps, so cooling won't be quite as important, meaning the fan would have a lower powerdraw. I'm no expert at all, and the power draw does seem a bit low, however I can certainly see a 3-5x performance increase to ASIC chips, even with a bit older of a production technique (like 130).

[ElectricMucus]

I personally think the only thing about the ASIC Jalepeno that isn't going to deliver is the coffee warmer part. The hashing power, as I see it, is possible, but good luck warming a coffee cup on a USB3.0. Espresso maybe?

You'd have to do better than that.
We have gone to great length explaining why we think BFLs numbers are fallacious. So you better address those arguments or at least provide some of your own.

Basically as said before, they could be using multiple chips, each chip with only a 3-5x performance increase over FPGA, which seems logical and perfectly possible in an ASIC. 5W may seem pretty hopeful, but I bet they can pull it off. ASIC chips can, as I've heard, deal with pretty high temps, so cooling won't be quite as important, meaning the fan would have a lower powerdraw. I'm no expert at all, and the power draw does seem a bit low, however I can certainly see a 3-5x performance increase to ASIC chips, even with a bit older of a production technique (like 130).

Alright, I pretty much already gone into that as well but again:

• 'older' production techniques are pretty much still state of the art on low volume ASICs. While 180nm is common and 130nm at a premium.
  
• The costs for a full custom ASICs in 180nm are beyond the market for BFL products (~10mil USD)
• There are no complete workflow software packackes available which can enable designing the chips without enough manpower.
• A fpga conversion 'ASIC' cannot meet the specs (at all feature sizes) and while it is the most likely chip to be used that would mean BFL would (again) exaggerated their promises.

[Dargo]

Well if they don't meet spec, it's worth remembering they have stated on this forum that this is a reason for which you can get a refund.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89523.0

"Regarding refunds and charge back policy:  All sales are final unless we fail to perform.  That includes both performance and shipping targets.  60 days past target and we'll happily refund your purchase."

I guess "performance" is a bit vague, but I take that to mean they need to meet spec.

At this point I'm getting tired of speculating...time to just wait and see what they come up with!

[ElectricMucus]

"Regarding refunds and charge back policy:  All sales are final unless we fail to perform.  That includes both performance and shipping targets.  60 days past target and we'll happily refund your purchase."

I guess "performance" is a bit vague, but I take that to mean they need to meet spec.

Easy:
According to BFL believers: Hashes/Jule and Hashes/sec
According to BFL: Hashes/sec only and only in the "Ballpark"

Several  estimations on what a real product would be capable of were done, I think even in this thread. But one thing: It is pretty clear that BFL deliberately left out numbers on the power requirement in order to encourage speculation. The only thing we have is a explanation from USB power limits which are fallacious in the first place since no possible accessible technology can provide it even in theory.

[Dargo]

"Regarding refunds and charge back policy:  All sales are final unless we fail to perform.  That includes both performance and shipping targets.  60 days past target and we'll happily refund your purchase."

I guess "performance" is a bit vague, but I take that to mean they need to meet spec.

Easy:
According to BFL believers: Hashes/Jule and Hashes/sec
According to BFL: Hashes/sec only and only in the "Ballpark"

Several  estimations on what a real product would be capable of were done, I think even in this thread. But one thing: It is pretty clear that BFL deliberately left out numbers on the power requirement in order to encourage speculation. The only thing we have is a explanation from USB power limits which are fallacious in the first place since no possible accessible technology can provide it even in theory.

I think your view is quite plausible. Personally I won't be overly miffed if they at least come close on Hashes/sec, but are way off on the implied-but-not-stated power spec. Sort of like the old singles - they turned out 20% less on the Hash rate, 4x higher power consumption, and BFL cut the price by 14% since they missed the promised specs. Ohhh, the Horror!

[LazyOtto]

Uh, my recollection is that they *raised* the price from $500 to $600 once they actually had a product to ship.

Can you quote something to support your statement about a price reduction, please?

[Dargo]

Uh, my recollection is that they *raised* the price from $500 to $600 once they actually had a product to ship.

Can you quote something to support your statement about a price reduction, please?

Is BFL's own account here a lie?

http://www.butterflylabs.com/bitforce-sc-release-notes/

"Our one blemish in spec estimate was with our original product.  The Single was announced at 1.05 GH/s @ 20W.  However, we released it at 832 MH/s @ 80W.  This was part of our introductory learning curve specific to this network hash application which is really quite extraordinary and unlike simple processor cryptography which is our background.  In the end, we missed our speed spec by 20% and power by a factor of 4. In fairness, we offered refunds and lowered our prices from $699 to $599 to compensate."

700 - 100 = 14% pride reduction. I thought I had read about this somewhere else as well, but can't remember where.

[LazyOtto]

Is BFL's own account here a lie?

Possibly. IMO they do not have a reputation which can be cited in their favor.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48863.0

Of course, the BFL web pages themselves have now been deleted / scrubbed. But it is clear from the context of that thread that the pre-release price point was initially quoted as $500.

--

BTW, thank you for digging up the quote you remembered.

[LazyOtto]

<lol>

And I find going back and reading that thread, in light of history and contemporary threads on the 'new' product, to be hilarious.

[Dargo]

<lol>

And I find going back and reading that thread, in light of history and contemporary threads on the 'new' product, to be hilarious.

Agreed. So many people saying "I'm 100% certain this is a scam!" Anyway, as far as I can tell, you are right - the original spec was for 1 Gh @ 20 watts, with a pre-order price of $500. However, I also found this post from D & T

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48863.msg637431#msg637431

This indicates that at some point the promised specs changed to 750-800 Mh @ 40-50 watts and the price had changed to $700. I don't have time to go through the whole thread right now, but it looks like the price was boosted to $700 at some point, and then (I assume) lowered to $600 (maybe when the final specs came in at 800 Mh @ 80 watts). 

[k9quaint]

I personally think the only thing about the ASIC Jalepeno that isn't going to deliver is the coffee warmer part. The hashing power, as I see it, is possible, but good luck warming a coffee cup on a USB3.0. Espresso maybe?

You'd have to do better than that.
We have gone to great length explaining why we think BFLs numbers are fallacious. So you better address those arguments or at least provide some of your own.

Basically as said before, they could be using multiple chips, each chip with only a 3-5x performance increase over FPGA, which seems logical and perfectly possible in an ASIC. 5W may seem pretty hopeful, but I bet they can pull it off. ASIC chips can, as I've heard, deal with pretty high temps, so cooling won't be quite as important, meaning the fan would have a lower powerdraw. I'm no expert at all, and the power draw does seem a bit low, however I can certainly see a 3-5x performance increase to ASIC chips, even with a bit older of a production technique (like 130).

Alright, I pretty much already gone into that as well but again:

• 'older' production techniques are pretty much still state of the art on low volume ASICs. While 180nm is common and 130nm at a premium.
  
• The costs for a full custom ASICs in 180nm are beyond the market for BFL products (~10mil USD)
• There are no complete workflow software packackes available which can enable designing the chips without enough manpower.
• A fpga conversion 'ASIC' cannot meet the specs (at all feature sizes) and while it is the most likely chip to be used that would mean BFL would (again) exaggerated their promises.

I think the most likely output from BFL is a multi-chip, low production volume, FPGA to ASIC conversion @ ~110nm with a core running @ ~400Mhz. That seems feasible to me, although it would not meet their stated performance goals. What is your opinion?

[LazyOtto]

This indicates that at some point the promised specs changed to 750-800 Mh @ 40-50 watts and the price had changed to $700.

And I agree with you.

The next shoe to drop in this BFL SC/ASIC drama is when "the promised specs change" and what the performance and price point will be then.

As well as the actual lead time to delivery after 100% money paid at time of order.

[Dargo]

The next shoe to drop in this BFL SC/ASIC drama is when "the promised specs change" and what the performance and price point will be then.

As well as the actual lead time to delivery after 100% money paid at time of order.

Well I won't be surprised if the promised specs change, but I don't think BFL can get away with changing the price point, at least not retroactively for those who have already ordered. For the original singles, the $500 price point was understood to be a special price for early adopters, with the price originally planned to go up to $600 after this. At least this is what is suggested by the following post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48863.msg582446#msg582446

So for the original single, a price increase was on the table early in the game. Apparently at some point they raised the amount of that increase and then dropped it back. We'll see, but I will be surprised if they change price. 

[Transisto]

My take on the Jalapeno.

Nobody in his right mind would buy this for profit. This is a novelty item meant as advertisement, so people ask, : "What is that thing" Bitcoin blablabla ... ... ... ... boring ... oh and coffee.

Unlike other coffee warmer this one does not consume any additional electricity as it's being left on all the time.

As it has been speculated, that thing may come with an additional power source so it might produce more heat.

Will the heat be sufficient to warm a coffee from room temp to warmish in a few hours ? I doubt it.
 Does this thing add insignificant heat to your coffee YES.   Do I care ? NO

[Raralith]

Even if the specs were 50% off, it would still demolish FPGA's and GPU's which are the only other players in the game. At 1.75 ghash @ 50 watts (50% less power, 5-10x more power) for $150, that would absolutely murder the QuadMiner which is 840 mhash @ 20 watts for $1,070. Would I be upset if they didn't meet their original marks? Sure. Would I return my preorders? No, because I certainly won't be buying a FPGA or more GPU's.

Even at my outrageous $0.25/kw rate, my 7970 can push 630 mhash at 220 watts and you can get one for $400; I'm actually more efficient now and I paid less than $300 for my 7970. Just for the power savings alone against the QuadMiner would be 180 watts or 129.6kw per 30 day month or $32.40 extra in electricity and 25% less hashing power. Based on current difficulty and BTC at $11 USD, I would make $139/month from QuadMiner and $104/month from a single 7970 or $35 less USD, add in $32.40 for electricity and that's $67.40 in lost profit and additional operating expenses. Now factor in additional capital costs of $680, and it would take me 10 months to break even (well over a year if you had cheap electricity). The question is whether you believe someone can make an ASIC in 10 months, even a "shitty" one.

Bottom line, 1) even if BFL doesn't give us near what they originally quoted, they would still reign supreme because they would still blow everyone out of the water, 2) even if BFL does not put out a single ASIC chip, the ball is already rolling and we may see ASIC's from a different vendor in a year anyways, 3) FPGA and GPU's are either running the gravy train (on us, the consumers) or just won't be worth the effort if you are in this for profit.

[ElectricMucus]

Bottom line, 1) even if BFL doesn't give us near what they originally quoted, they would still reign supreme because they would still blow everyone out of the water, 2) even if BFL does not put out a single ASIC chip, the ball is already rolling and we may see ASIC's from a different vendor in a year anyways, 3) FPGA and GPU's are either running the gravy train (on us, the consumers) or just won't be worth the effort if you are in this for profit.

Don't be so sure about that, the competition isn't sleeping. And that's not the bottom line.
The bottom line if there is another fpga conversion asic before BFLs "extended" deadline people gonna be duped.

[Raralith]

Don't be so sure about that, the competition isn't sleeping. And that's not the bottom line.
The bottom line if there is another fpga conversion asic before BFLs "extended" deadline people gonna be duped.

As I already pointed out, I'm glad the competition isn't sleeping because current FPGA's prices are absolutely outrageous. 1 to 3.5 gmash for $150 will pull correct the current FPGA price gouging.

[ElectricMucus]

Don't be so sure about that, the competition isn't sleeping. And that's not the bottom line.
The bottom line if there is another fpga conversion asic before BFLs "extended" deadline people gonna be duped.

As I already pointed out, I'm glad the competition isn't sleeping because current FPGA's prices are absolutely outrageous. 1 to 3.5 gmash for $150 will pull correct the current FPGA price gouging.

Except in the case of BFL it might turn out to be no ASIC of any kind but some next-gen FPGA like Kintex-7. That would even be consistent since BFLs main asset seems to be to be able to obtain mid-range FPGAs at wholesale prices. So they could have just made up some performance figures... you figure out the rest. (Mind you the singles were introduced to contain ASICs too.)

I don't know whats the ETA for the next-gen xilinx FPGAs but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens to coincide with the BFL deadline.

I agree that completion is good for the market, the problem is BFL isn't playing fair, neither to the market nor their customers,

[goxed]

Don't be so sure about that, the competition isn't sleeping. And that's not the bottom line.
The bottom line if there is another fpga conversion asic before BFLs "extended" deadline people gonna be duped.

As I already pointed out, I'm glad the competition isn't sleeping because current FPGA's prices are absolutely outrageous. 1 to 3.5 gmash for $150 will pull correct the current FPGA price gouging.

Except in the case of BFL it might turn out to be no ASIC of any kind but some next-gen FPGA like Kintex-7. That would even be consistent since BFLs main asset seems to be to be able to obtain mid-range FPGAs at wholesale prices. So they could have just made up some performance figures... you figure out the rest. (Mind you the singles were introduced to contain ASICs too.)

I don't know whats the ETA for the next-gen xilinx FPGAs but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens to coincide with the BFL deadline.

I agree that completion is good for the market, the problem is BFL isn't playing fair, neither to the market nor their customers,

Kintex is already available. I have seen FPGA computing boards with Kintex-7 in some tech show.

[BR0KK]

But at what price .....

Not the same as they had with the "obviously" used single fpgas?


I think a jalapeño will barely make profit, more "barely" min it's own costs (electricity + hw)

[molecular]

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.

oh, I got it: pirate is collecting BTC to fund BFL. They will mine back the BTC with the asics.

[runeks]

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.
[...]

Could you please provide some sort of evidence that backs this statement? I'm not saying you're wrong, I have no idea what these kinds of chips cost, I'm just interested in some evidence.

What would comprise the 10M figure? How much of it would be development, and how much would be payment to the fab? It looks to me like they are developing the hardware design themselves. My knowledge of this process says it's a task of creating some HDL-code, and then having this code transformed into a chip by a fab. I've also heard that you can't write generic HDL code, ie. code that fits all production processes. So they have to decide on which process to use before writing their code.

My point is this: if 90% of the production costs are related to writing the HDL-code, then it might be feasible if they are able to write the code themselves, and only need to shell out the money for the actual production.
The equivalent situation in the world of software would be a claim that says that "it costs $100,000 to develop a professional website". That may be true if you hire a web design company, who write the entire thing from the ground up, but if you're able to write the code yourself, the costs mostly comprise hosting, and not much more.

In short: please educate me about hardware design .

[ElectricMucus]

I won't be able to educate you on hardware design because I know almost nothing about this subject.

I followed Chuck Moore for a few years about creating a new multiprocessor-soc design which he actually did. (I have one of the chips at home but still haven't gotten around on using). Somewhere he mentioned that he is going to mainly pay the initial development out of his own pocket, he is trying to do it the most economical way possible and that it will be like 10mil dollars. He actually has written a entire software package including a new programming language and operating system to do it, so I'm really confident he took the cheapest route.
I don't know where exactly to find that information anymore but I will try to find and quote it. (He has blanked out some parts of his blog though)

[runeks]

I won't be able to educate you on hardware design because I know almost nothing about this subject.

I followed Chuck Moore for a few years about creating a new multiprocessor-soc design which he actually did. (I have one of the chips at home but still haven't gotten around on using). Somewhere he mentioned that he is going to mainly pay the initial development out of his own pocket, he is trying to do it the most economical way possible and that it will be like 10mil dollars. He actually has written a entire software package including a new programming language and operating system to do it, so I'm really confident he took the cheapest route.
I don't know where exactly to find that information anymore but I will try to find and quote it. (He has blanked out some parts of his blog though)

Doing some research myself, this Wikipedia article seems to suggest that HDL code is just a small part of the actual chip design (HDL code would be the "Functional Design"-step, as far as I can gather):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_design_%28electronics%29

I can see I'm already way in over my head, as I don't understand most of what the article says. But it seems that my view of hardware design as "write HDL, create chip" is grossly over-simplified.

[ElectricMucus]

I can see I'm already way in over my head, as I don't understand most of what the article says. But it seems that my view of hardware design as "write HDL, create chip" is grossly over-simplified.

What you are describing are fpga to asic conversions like Hardcopy.  These chips consist of the same logic layout as the fpgas you use to protoype them and they have metal layers instead of the routing fabric making them faster and cheaper to produce.

You can check out Chuck's site yourself there are some examples about what his software does.

Creating a full custom asic involves modelling the transistors, simulating the behavior of the p-n junctions and the currents through the metal layers. Next is constructing logic elements out of the transistors and configuring the layout of the chip and transferring the logic into it. There are ways to start with pre-made logic elements if you buy the software which models them for you, or rent it. There are also processes which are some in-between where you have some areas already layed out for you. There is lots of snake oil in this area... it boils down to pre-configured layers which cost you performance.

[davidspitzer]

Does it really matter whether it's full custom, off the shelf or in between? If it hashes at the promised level they can send me a paper towel tube wrapped in bacon with a USB port if it works.

[ElectricMucus]

Have you even read the thread?

Does it really matter whether it's full custom, off the shelf or in between? If it hashes at the promised level they can send me a paper towel tube wrapped in bacon with a USB port if it works.

Except it just won't work. Again anything but a full custom asic cannot supply the promised performance. Is this some kind of wear down tactic to always come up with the same question/arguments even when they have been thoroughly answered/debunked?

[Puppet]

Have you even read the thread?

Does it really matter whether it's full custom, off the shelf or in between? If it hashes at the promised level they can send me a paper towel tube wrapped in bacon with a USB port if it works.

Except it just won't work. Again anything but a full custom asic cannot supply the promised performance. Is this some kind of wear down tactic to always come up with the same question/arguments even when they have been thoroughly answered/debunked?

Thats nonsense. The difference between a full custom asic and standard cell asic is relatively small, usually less than one process node, and we dont even know what node they used. For some applications and particularly if you dont have very skilled designers with a ton of time, a standard cell solution might even perform better, but will typically be a bit bigger.

Im pretty sure BFL will deliver a standard cell asic, and their "full custom" refers to the asic design, not the transistor design. A poor choice of words perhaps, but nothing more.

[ElectricMucus]

They promise 3.5GH per 5W (usb powered) they won't even reach that with the latest nanometer node, so the debate is irrelevant.

I was refering to full custom asics as "real" asics to which standart cell asics belong since they use the same manufactureing technique except they use tech libraries instead of construcing their own gates and sub-circuits. On the physical layer it is the same thing. FPGA conversion asics however are not, and that's the only "asic" which BFL would have access to.

[Puppet]

They promise 3.5GH per 5W (usb powered) they won't even reach that with the latest nanometer node, so the debate is irrelevant.

and you base that on what exactly?

[abracadabra]

They promise 3.5GH per 5W (usb powered) they won't even reach that with the latest nanometer node, so the debate is irrelevant.

I was refering to full custom asics as "real" asics to which standart cell asics belong since they use the same manufactureing technique except they use tech libraries instead of construcing their own gates and sub-circuits. On the physical layer it is the same thing. FPGA conversion asics however are not, and that's the only "asic" which BFL would have access to.

BFL has mentioned that the USB power is not for the mining hardware.  It's only  for the coffee warmer.  The circuit will require it's own external power supply.

[beekeeper]

They promise 3.5GH per 5W (usb powered) they won't even reach that with the latest nanometer node, so the debate is irrelevant.

I was refering to full custom asics as "real" asics to which standart cell asics belong since they use the same manufactureing technique except they use tech libraries instead of construcing their own gates and sub-circuits. On the physical layer it is the same thing. FPGA conversion asics however are not, and that's the only "asic" which BFL would have access to.

BFL has mentioned that the USB power is not for the mining hardware.  It's only  for the coffee warmer.  The circuit will require it's own external power supply.

I'm pretty sure they said they calculated they can use the heat generated from the asic for the warmer.

[Cergorach]

*shrugs*

Assuming folks mine BTC for profit, the BFL ASIC is a necessary investment if folks want to stay competetive in the BTC mining market. I suspect that most folks that want to buy a BFL ASIC already have or have ordered the BFL FPGA products (Single or Rig) and those will be exchanged for the BFL ASIC when they become available plus half the price of the ASIC. They can still mine during the time they wait on the new product, sure they paid a bloody big chunk of cash up front, but I assume that as this is an investment, they are prepared to lose that money. That's what business is all about, taking risks and making money. Not taking the risk most probably will cost more money (that is an educated guess because we can't see the future and only hindsight is 20/20).

Let's say that BFL doesn't come close to the state hashing numbers, as long as performance is at least twice what it is now, no money is really lost. Maybe a bit more to compensate for the additional difficulty to compensate for the added extra hashing power. I doubt power consumption would be twice as high, because that would probably generate more heat then can be dissipated. Heck, if a $30k Rig could only do 100GHash/s, that is still four times more then a $15k Rig could do. Sure the advantage over the folks not using the new BFL products would be less great, but the financial advantage is still very much there.

If it was a scam, it could be made far more attractive for folks to invest in, more 'believable' numbers could be used, lower prices so more folks would be willing to risk it, etc. This reminds me very much of the time when the rumors of the iPad 3 and it's very high resolution display, there were many naysayers that it couldn't be done, stating very reasonable 'facts'. The problem was/is that technology isn't an analog increase, it's a digital one, with jumps in performance instead of a gradual increase. Even in the processor industry you don't buy a 100MHz proc and then a 101MHz proc. It went from 100MHz to 120MHz. From DVD to Blueray the maximum amount of data a single sided disk could contain increased 15 times (8.5GB to 128GB), sure those are not mainstream disks, but is a $30k Rig?

Honestly, if you don't trust BFL, your pretty screwd as a big miner (best price vs. MHash/s vs. KW/h). And if you don't trust BFL, that's your right and your welcome to your opinion, because after all, it is an opinion, nothing more. Folks that do believe are also welcome to their opinion. Personally I'll wait and see, not only do I have mixed feelings about the future of the BTC value and the difficulty of mining it, I'm also not currently in the position to mine for profit in any meaningful way (due to not enough budget for a BFL Rig and cooling issues, not to mention very high local power costs).

[ElectricMucus]

They promise 3.5GH per 5W (usb powered) they won't even reach that with the latest nanometer node, so the debate is irrelevant.

I was refering to full custom asics as "real" asics to which standart cell asics belong since they use the same manufactureing technique except they use tech libraries instead of construcing their own gates and sub-circuits. On the physical layer it is the same thing. FPGA conversion asics however are not, and that's the only "asic" which BFL would have access to.

BFL has mentioned that the USB power is not for the mining hardware.  It's only  for the coffee warmer.  The circuit will require it's own external power supply.

Where did they mention that?
Source as usb-powered: The BFL homepage at the time this thread was created, as the consensus of the bitcointalk community. If BFL and their supporters now engage in backpeddeling that doesn't affect my case, it only strengthens it.

A walwart power supply fpga conversion product could indeed be capable of delivering that performance, at least in theory but it is still very questionable if the raw hashes figures would hold at that price.
If you people care to read the thread in it's entirety you'll see that has already been discussed.

[MrTeal]

They replied in their thread somewhere that the actual hashing engine would be USB power, with the external power supply being only used for the coffee warmer.

[runeks]

^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.

It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.

[molecular]

^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.

It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.

Who cares as long as it lives up to the hashrate specs.

[Vladimir]

Whether they will get claimed performance or not is basically a question of whether they have ~30 million USD for R&D and 9-12 month time or not.

[MrTeal]

^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.

It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.

Sorry, there's dozens of BFL ASIC threads and I'm not looking through them all to find the quote.

The basic gist was, it was revealed (I believe on the BFL website, but I could be wrong on that) that there would be a barrel jack on the Jalapeno. People obviously got excited about that and the implications it held for efficiency numbers and the fact that BFL had previously stated the Jalapeno was USB powered. BFL then came in and clarified that the actual device was USB powered and the plug was just to provide extra power for the warmer.

[runeks]

^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.

It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.

Who cares as long as it lives up to the hashrate specs.

People who pay for power, I'd imagine.

^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.

It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.

Sorry, there's dozens of BFL ASIC threads and I'm not looking through them all to find the quote.

The basic gist was, it was revealed (I believe on the BFL website, but I could be wrong on that) that there would be a barrel jack on the Jalapeno. People obviously got excited about that and the implications it held for efficiency numbers and the fact that BFL had previously stated the Jalapeno was USB powered. BFL then came in and clarified that the actual device was USB powered and the plug was just to provide extra power for the warmer.

Thanks for the recap.

[ElectricMucus]

^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.

It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.

Who cares as long as it lives up to the hashrate specs.

Right, and what if that is just a little off lets say by about 40%?
What if next-gen fpgas happen to beat them?

Whether they will get claimed performance or not is basically a question of whether they have ~30 million USD for R&D and 9-12 month time or not.

Psst, everybody knows BFL has a magical contract with Chinese elves.

[YokoToriyama]

Right, and what if that is just a little off lets say by about 40%?
What if next-gen fpgas happen to beat them?

custom or hard copy.. your trying hard to break down the difference between say a turbo and a supercharger..
but come on 40% off., when you have nothing to base this on is really going on speculation.

we can sit here all day and say it might be 50% off the target but right now everyone here
is waiting on 40 Ghash's.. i don't care if its full custom .. hard copy or donuts with a USB cables sticking out of them
40 ghash it is until you come with actual evidence we can go at this till the earth freeze's over.

[ElectricMucus]

You'll see.

The difference between Hardcopy and real asics has been explained several times, just look it up.
One last time: Hardcopy is the same device as an FPGA except there is a metal layer instead of the routing, so there is marginally lower power consumption and marginally higher speed. Its a little better than the difference between different speed grades of the same fpga. Several people many of them professionals in the field have said this if you don't believe me.

btw: nicely done for finding this thread after 13 posts  

[crazyates]

just looking at the network hashrate... something goofy is going on,.  how do we go from 15000 to 22,000 within 24 hour period ?  I have never seen such large swings until lately. 

I thought the "network speed" was based off the rate at which blocks were being found, and estimating it from there. If everyone happened to have a 24 hour streak of bad luck, then the graph would dip. If everyone had really good luck tho, then the graph would swing up. Thats why I like the 3day average.

[Fiyasko]

just looking at the network hashrate... something goofy is going on,.  how do we go from 15000 to 22,000 within 24 hour period ?  I have never seen such large swings until lately. 

I thought the "network speed" was based off the rate at which blocks were being found, and estimating it from there. If everyone happened to have a 24 hour streak of bad luck, then the graph would dip. If everyone had really good luck tho, then the graph would swing up. Thats why I like the 3day average.

Uhmmm, Im pretty sure that luck is directly realated to the number of blocks being solved in relevance to how many your pool is solving..
The only way what you saying could happen (i think) Is that if a Solominer Nailed >50% of the blocks one day, And then hit close to none the next..

[molecular]

just looking at the network hashrate... something goofy is going on,.  how do we go from 15000 to 22,000 within 24 hour period ?  I have never seen such large swings until lately. 

goofy?

hashrate follows exchange rate (with a noisy lag of 1-4 weeks), cost for running mining equipment has been falling => everything normal. I'm not saying BFL is not "testing their new product", though. That also would not be goofy.

[Chrstian]

Don't you guys remember that the Singles were claimed to contain custom hardware?

It will either turn out to be an exaggerated claim or even a scam.  
inb4 BFL fanboy shitstorm.


anyway just posting that so I can bump it next year with "I told you so."

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

well i certainly hope its an exaggerated claim/scam  i just purchased 1500 BTC worth of mining hardware (hoping its not true) if it is indeed true im going to say bye bye to all my profits

[runeks]

Don't you guys remember that the Singles were claimed to contain custom hardware?

It will either turn out to be an exaggerated claim or even a scam.  
inb4 BFL fanboy shitstorm.


anyway just posting that so I can bump it next year with "I told you so."

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

well i certainly hope its an exaggerated claim/scam  i just purchased 1500 BTC worth of mining hardware (hoping its not true) if it is indeed true im going to say bye bye to all my profits

You might want to consider than, besides BFL, an additional three companies are allegedly developing ASIC Bitcoin miners:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79637.300#msg1157524
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108375.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91173.0;all

[mrb]

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

They do now.  

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.

If you know how the process of semiconductor manufacturing actually works the notation of a BFL custom ASIC is ridiculous.
To get an idea what kind of people pulled this thing off in the past... (Ninja Style ASIC development using selfwritten software), he did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Moore

If you truly think that BFL cannot achieve, oh, say, 350 Mhash/Joule, then you can easily make 50 BTC by betting as little as 0.1 BTC (since people have yet to bet against my entry on betsofbitco.in). See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109357.0

[runeks]

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

They do now.  

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.

If you know how the process of semiconductor manufacturing actually works the notation of a BFL custom ASIC is ridiculous.
To get an idea what kind of people pulled this thing off in the past... (Ninja Style ASIC development using selfwritten software), he did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Moore

If you truly think that BFL cannot achieve, oh, say, 350 Mhash/Joule, then you can easily make 50 BTC by betting as little as 0.1 BTC (since people have yet to bet against my entry on betsofbitco.in). See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109357.0

If you will guarantee me 500:1 odds on this bet, I'd take it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, betsofbitcoin doesn't guarantee odds: someone could come in after me and place a bet and ruin my odds. I don't make bets for which I don't know the odds.

[mrb]

If you require 500:1 odds to bet, this means you think 350 Mhash/J may be doable.
Therefore you are not the person I want to bet against. I want to bet against those who claim 350 Mhash/J is plainly impossible

[Inaba]

Would you be willing to escrow a bet amount at 500:1 odds?  If so, how much are you willing to risk?

[Sitarow]

Would you be willing to escrow a bet amount at 500:1 odds?  If so, how much are you willing to risk?

Inaba it's an unfair bet

[grue]

I have to admit, I've been a chip fabrication nut for 30 years and I just can't figure out how the hell they can build this within the scope of power they claim. They have (again in my opinion) zero chance at getting access to 45nm or lower wafer starts with this small a market, so that leaves the larger processes only. Given that, the power doesn't add up. Even at 45 I'm thinking the power claims wouldn't add up.

But anyhow, it's put huge uncertainty in the mining market and may have been partially responsible for keeping difficulty down as people eschew the purchases of new hardware either GPU or other.

Guess we'll see.

Anyone taking real bets on this? I'll take a piece of the triumvirate .. that they miss POWER, HASH and DELIVERY DATE claims as they are now.

how much would you have to pay for global foundries to make you a 45 nm wafer?

[runeks]

Would you be willing to escrow a bet amount at 500:1 odds?  If so, how much are you willing to risk?

I'm willing to bet 2 BTC on this, if you are also willing to escrow your 1000 BTC with a party we both trust.

[MrTeal]

I might be interested in a bet based on your claimed power specs Inaba, depending on the odds. 1TH/s from 1250W or less at the wall for the SC Minirig. Would you take a bet like that at 100:1 odds?

[Inaba]

Here's the thing, I have no problem taking the odds from either of you... what I do have a problem with is tying up my BTC for so little return for weeks at a time.  I mean, tying up $1200 to win $12 for a few weeks is just not lucrative for me.  I mean, it's a guaranteed win for me, but the lost revenue of not having access to that money does not make it desirable for me.

[MrTeal]

Here's the thing, I have no problem taking the odds from either of you... what I do have a problem with is tying up my BTC for so little return for weeks at a time.  I mean, tying up $1200 to win $12 for a few weeks is just not lucrative for me.  I mean, it's a guaranteed win for me, but the lost revenue of not having access to that money does not make it desirable for me.

Fair enough.

[runeks]

Here's the thing, I have no problem taking the odds from either of you... what I do have a problem with is tying up my BTC for so little return for weeks at a time.  I mean, tying up $1200 to win $12 for a few weeks is just not lucrative for me.  I mean, it's a guaranteed win for me, but the lost revenue of not having access to that money does not make it desirable for me.

Are you willing to do it without escrow then? Or are you afraid I'll run away with the 2 BTC in case I lose?

[mufa23]

[Inaba]

Sure I can do it without escrow, but please define the bet specifically before I commit.

[runeks]

[...]
If you truly think that BFL cannot achieve, oh, say, 350 Mhash/Joule, then you can easily make 50 BTC by betting as little as 0.1 BTC (since people have yet to bet against my entry on betsofbitco.in). See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109357.0

If you will guarantee me 500:1 odds on this bet, I'd take it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, betsofbitcoin doesn't guarantee odds: someone could come in after me and place a bet and ruin my odds. I don't make bets for which I don't know the odds.

Would you be willing to escrow a bet amount at 500:1 odds?  If so, how much are you willing to risk?

Would you be willing to escrow a bet amount at 500:1 odds?  If so, how much are you willing to risk?

I'm willing to bet 2 BTC on this, if you are also willing to escrow your 1000 BTC with a party we both trust.

Here's the thing, I have no problem taking the odds from either of you... what I do have a problem with is tying up my BTC for so little return for weeks at a time.  I mean, tying up $1200 to win $12 for a few weeks is just not lucrative for me.  I mean, it's a guaranteed win for me, but the lost revenue of not having access to that money does not make it desirable for me.

Sure I can do it without escrow, but please define the bet specifically before I commit.

At 500:1 odds I, runeks, bet 2 BTC that the first line of ASIC-chips shipped by Butterfly Labs (ie. not any later series/revision) in their 'SC' line of products will have an efficiency of less than 350 Mhash/Joule. This figure pertains only to the chip itself, so any inefficiency in the power supply will allow for a higher power usage of the device in which the chip resides. So, power supply inefficiencies are excluded, but other components on the board that are required for the device to work will be included in the power efficiency measurement, as the power efficiency figure is irrelevant if the device - under ideal conditions - can't operate at that efficiency anyway.

At the odds of 500:1 that are in effect for this bet I will win 1000 BTC if I am correct (power efficiency is less 350 Mhash/Joule), and lose 2 BTC if I am incorrect (power efficiency is greater than or equal to 350 Mhash/Joule).

Power efficiency shall be measured over a 24 hour period.

Inaba, if you agree then quote this post and say you agree, or suggest a revision of the terms if you think I'm missing something or being unfair.

[MrTeal]

You might want to add a condition that the efficiency has to be measured at the advertised hashing rate, otherwise a downclocked and undervolted bitstream could satisfy that bet.

[runeks]

I thought about that, but I wasn't sure how to state it without the bet becoming invalid if BFL doesn't meet their projected performance claims. I don't care about their performance claims, only about them shipping a product that does 350 Mhash/Joule. I feel that it's enough to say that the bet concerns the "first line of ASIC-chips shipped by Butterfly Labs" ie. not some custom product, but the actual, shipped product. I doubt they are willing to alter their whole line of products just so Inaba can win his bet. Inaba, do you have any thoughts on this?

[Inaba]

Looks ok to me, but let me clarify in these terms as well:

You believe, for example, the Single SC will not have a power consumption less than ~114W.  You are, in effect betting:

The Single SC, hashing at 40,000 MH/s will consume more than 114W consistently over a 24H period.  I use this as an example, and we will use the 350 Mhash/Joule as the actual authentication of who wins the bet, but I just wanted to be sure we are talking about the same power consumption metrics.

[jasinlee]

Kinda hard to believe that there would be so many companies falsifying information about asics.

[runeks]

Looks ok to me, but let me clarify in these terms as well:

You believe, for example, the Single SC will not have a power consumption less than ~114W.  You are, in effect betting:

The Single SC, hashing at 40,000 MH/s will consume more than 114W consistently over a 24H period.  I use this as an example, and we will use the 350 Mhash/Joule as the actual authentication of who wins the bet, but I just wanted to be sure we are talking about the same power consumption metrics.

This is correct. Will you quote my previous post saying you agree to the bet? It's getting somewhat late here and I want to finish this tonight .

[Inaba]

At 500:1 odds I, runeks, bet 2 BTC that the first line of ASIC-chips shipped by Butterfly Labs (ie. not any later series/revision) in their 'SC' line of products will have an efficiency of less than 350 Mhash/Joule. This figure pertains only to the chip itself, so any inefficiency in the power supply will allow for a higher power usage of the device in which the chip resides. So, power supply inefficiencies are excluded, but other components on the board that are required for the device to work will be included in the power efficiency measurement, as the power efficiency figure is irrelevant if the device - under ideal conditions - can't operate at that efficiency anyway.

At the odds of 500:1 that are in effect for this bet I will win 1000 BTC if I am correct (power efficiency is less 350 Mhash/Joule), and lose 2 BTC if I am incorrect (power efficiency is greater than or equal to 350 Mhash/Joule).

Power efficiency shall be measured over a 24 hour period.

Inaba, if you agree then quote this post and say you agree, or suggest a revision of the terms if you think I'm missing something or being unfair.

I agree with this bet.

[runeks]

At 500:1 odds I, runeks, bet 2 BTC that the first line of ASIC-chips shipped by Butterfly Labs (ie. not any later series/revision) in their 'SC' line of products will have an efficiency of less than 350 Mhash/Joule. This figure pertains only to the chip itself, so any inefficiency in the power supply will allow for a higher power usage of the device in which the chip resides. So, power supply inefficiencies are excluded, but other components on the board that are required for the device to work will be included in the power efficiency measurement, as the power efficiency figure is irrelevant if the device - under ideal conditions - can't operate at that efficiency anyway.

At the odds of 500:1 that are in effect for this bet I will win 1000 BTC if I am correct (power efficiency is less 350 Mhash/Joule), and lose 2 BTC if I am incorrect (power efficiency is greater than or equal to 350 Mhash/Joule).

Power efficiency shall be measured over a 24 hour period.

Inaba, if you agree then quote this post and say you agree, or suggest a revision of the terms if you think I'm missing something or being unfair.

I agree with this bet.

I, too, agree with this bet.

Can someone please quote this to act as a witness? Thank you.

Nice betting with you Inaba. I better buy the coins now to lock in the price .

[crazyates]

At 500:1 odds I, runeks, bet 2 BTC that the first line of ASIC-chips shipped by Butterfly Labs (ie. not any later series/revision) in their 'SC' line of products will have an efficiency of less than 350 Mhash/Joule. This figure pertains only to the chip itself, so any inefficiency in the power supply will allow for a higher power usage of the device in which the chip resides. So, power supply inefficiencies are excluded, but other components on the board that are required for the device to work will be included in the power efficiency measurement, as the power efficiency figure is irrelevant if the device - under ideal conditions - can't operate at that efficiency anyway.

At the odds of 500:1 that are in effect for this bet I will win 1000 BTC if I am correct (power efficiency is less 350 Mhash/Joule), and lose 2 BTC if I am incorrect (power efficiency is greater than or equal to 350 Mhash/Joule).

Power efficiency shall be measured over a 24 hour period.

Inaba, if you agree then quote this post and say you agree, or suggest a revision of the terms if you think I'm missing something or being unfair.

I agree with this bet.

I, too, agree with this bet.

Can someone please quote this to act as a witness? Thank you.

Nice betting with you Inaba. I better buy the coins now to lock in the price .

[Inaba]

Yeah, you go'in broke, son!

[hahahafr]

Well, runeks just bought us, for 2 BTC, the information that the Single SC @ 40 GH/s will not consume more than 114W.
Kinda expensive just to know that if you ask me.

[MrTeal]

Well, runeks just bought us, for 2 BTC, the information that the Single SC @ 40 GH/s will not consume more than 114W.
Kinda expensive just to know that if you ask me.

What are you babbling about? This is a continuation of the bet that mrb proposed that BFL would meet 350MH/J. It has nothing to do with the claims that BFL has made about their power usage which are actually more than twice as stringent.

[hahahafr]

What/who is "mrb"?

[MrTeal]

What/who is "mrb"?

If you would take some time off from hassling BFL about whether they're going to respond to an introductory price of an ASIC that's launching months after theirs is planned to, you could spend enought time to read a thread before commenting on it.

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

They do now. 

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.

If you know how the process of semiconductor manufacturing actually works the notation of a BFL custom ASIC is ridiculous.
To get an idea what kind of people pulled this thing off in the past... (Ninja Style ASIC development using selfwritten software), he did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Moore

If you truly think that BFL cannot achieve, oh, say, 350 Mhash/Joule, then you can easily make 50 BTC by betting as little as 0.1 BTC (since people have yet to bet against my entry on betsofbitco.in). See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109357.0

[HDSolar]

Can we expand the bet, I will bet with Inaba

[crazyates]

Well, runeks just bought us, for 2 BTC, the information that the Single SC @ 40 GH/s will not consume more than 114W.
Kinda expensive just to know that if you ask me.

LOL you didn't "buy" anything. It's already been said that they won't use any more power than the current products.

[el_rlee]

"I told you so."

You already have the honour to be the first one to answer to pirateat40's OP...
Don't overdo it!

[Korbman]

At 500:1 odds I, runeks, bet 2 BTC that the first line of ASIC-chips shipped by Butterfly Labs (ie. not any later series/revision) in their 'SC' line of products will have an efficiency of less than 350 Mhash/Joule. This figure pertains only to the chip itself, so any inefficiency in the power supply will allow for a higher power usage of the device in which the chip resides. So, power supply inefficiencies are excluded, but other components on the board that are required for the device to work will be included in the power efficiency measurement, as the power efficiency figure is irrelevant if the device - under ideal conditions - can't operate at that efficiency anyway.

At the odds of 500:1 that are in effect for this bet I will win 1000 BTC if I am correct (power efficiency is less 350 Mhash/Joule), and lose 2 BTC if I am incorrect (power efficiency is greater than or equal to 350 Mhash/Joule).

Power efficiency shall be measured over a 24 hour period.

Inaba, if you agree then quote this post and say you agree, or suggest a revision of the terms if you think I'm missing something or being unfair.

I agree with this bet.

I, too, agree with this bet.

Can someone please quote this to act as a witness? Thank you.

Nice betting with you Inaba. I better buy the coins now to lock in the price .

Umm..what? Let me get this straight..
Runeks is betting that the chip won't meet a certain power efficiency.
Inaba...who is employed by ButterflyLabs...disagrees.
A bet ensues, with 500:1 odds that Runeks' statement is correct?

Why the hell would you bet the person WHO WORKS FOR THE COMPANY that their OWN PRODUCT won't meet your ideals?

Am I missing something?

[MrTeal]

Umm..what? Let me get this straight..
Runeks is betting that the chip won't meet a certain power efficiency.
Inaba...who is employed by ButterflyLabs...disagrees.
A bet ensues, with 500:1 odds that Runeks' statement is correct?

Why the hell would you bet the person WHO WORKS FOR THE COMPANY that their OWN PRODUCT won't meet your ideals?

Am I missing something?

Yes, probably. Butterfly Labs was wrong on the power efficiency of the first device in their previous generation of products by almost a factor of 5, from 1000MH/s@20W to 832MH/s@80W. Considering that we don't know what the status is of the ASIC chips, it's possible that BFL doesn't have the first run back from the foundry yet, and do not know the exact power consumption at their rated hash rate. It might be a long shot to win this one given how low the bar is set relative to the claims, but 500:1 odds make up for a lot of that.

[Korbman]

Umm..what? Let me get this straight..
Runeks is betting that the chip won't meet a certain power efficiency.
Inaba...who is employed by ButterflyLabs...disagrees.
A bet ensues, with 500:1 odds that Runeks' statement is correct?

Why the hell would you bet the person WHO WORKS FOR THE COMPANY that their OWN PRODUCT won't meet your ideals?

Am I missing something?

Yes, probably. Butterfly Labs was wrong on the power efficiency of the first device in their previous generation of products by almost a factor of 5, from 1000MH/s@20W to 832MH/s@80W. Considering that we don't know what the status is of the ASIC chips, it's possible that BFL doesn't have the first run back from the foundry yet, and do not know the exact power consumption at their rated hash rate. It might be a long shot to win this one given how low the bar is set relative to the claims, but 500:1 odds make up for a lot of that.

Ah got it. I wasn't aware of the previous disparity on BFL equipment. Still...I'm voting for Inaba to win. I want efficient equipment

[ElectricMucus]

"I told you so."

You already have the honour to be the first one to answer to pirateat40's OP...
Don't overdo it!

I'm sorry I just couldn't resist 


btw: nice back-peddeling Inaba!

[Inaba]

Back peddling on what?

[ElectricMucus]

Relativation of claims on power efficency.

I'm sure you'll come up with a knit-witted response that you are not, go ahead... more back-peddeling commericing in 3, 2, 1...

[Inaba]

I repeat:  What the fuck are you talking about?  If you need to, please pay someone to translate your mad ramblings into English.

[ElectricMucus]

sdfffgs*

grammar nazi much?

[Korbman]

I repeat:  What the fuck are you talking about?  If you need to, please pay someone to translate your mad ramblings into English.

Though I wasn't paid, I have translated his ramblings, poor sentence structure, and grammatical errors to this English version:

"Inaba, my good sir, even though your current presumption on the power efficiency of new ASIC products is quite noteworthy, there are doubters within our community based on previous data. I predict you will be crafting a clever response to the accusations of poor power efficiency in previous BFL products. How do you respond?"

[Inaba]

I think you are mistranslating it.  He was clearly speaking of past tense, not future tense, so again, we have no idea what he's trying to say.

[Korbman]

I think you are mistranslating it.  He was clearly speaking of past tense, not future tense, so again, we have no idea what he's trying to say.

Hmm..could be quite right here. I'm a little rusty on my "Incoherent Babbling to English" translation skills. If only Google Translate could help...

[runeks]

At 500:1 odds I, runeks, bet 2 BTC that the first line of ASIC-chips shipped by Butterfly Labs (ie. not any later series/revision) in their 'SC' line of products will have an efficiency of less than 350 Mhash/Joule. This figure pertains only to the chip itself, so any inefficiency in the power supply will allow for a higher power usage of the device in which the chip resides. So, power supply inefficiencies are excluded, but other components on the board that are required for the device to work will be included in the power efficiency measurement, as the power efficiency figure is irrelevant if the device - under ideal conditions - can't operate at that efficiency anyway.

At the odds of 500:1 that are in effect for this bet I will win 1000 BTC if I am correct (power efficiency is less 350 Mhash/Joule), and lose 2 BTC if I am incorrect (power efficiency is greater than or equal to 350 Mhash/Joule).

Power efficiency shall be measured over a 24 hour period.

Inaba, if you agree then quote this post and say you agree, or suggest a revision of the terms if you think I'm missing something or being unfair.

I agree with this bet.

I, too, agree with this bet.

Can someone please quote this to act as a witness? Thank you.

Nice betting with you Inaba. I better buy the coins now to lock in the price .

Umm..what? Let me get this straight..
Runeks is betting that the chip won't meet a certain power efficiency.
Inaba...who is employed by ButterflyLabs...disagrees.
A bet ensues, with 500:1 odds that Runeks' statement is correct?

Why the hell would you bet the person WHO WORKS FOR THE COMPANY that their OWN PRODUCT won't meet your ideals?

Am I missing something?

MrTeal summed up the situation nicely. But the reason I made the bet can be stated in even simpler terms:

I estimate the probability of BFL not meeting their 350 Mhash/Joule target to be greater than 0.2%.

[Korbman]

I estimate the probability of BFL not meeting their 350 Mhash/Joule target to be greater than 0.2%.

Couple of things here..
1) Is there any math behind this or is it just a random number you thought of? I get that's where the 500:1 odds come in, but I was wondering if there's anything to back up the claim.
2) You're estimating that the probability of BFL not meeting their target is greater than 0.2%? That's saying the probability of BFL meeting their goals is less than or equal to 99.8%. So you're saying that you have no idea what the chances are...but you figure you'll cover almost the entire spectrum by stating "greater than 0.2%"

Say I went into a casino. I walk up to a game that says the odds of winning aren't known, but there is up to a 99.8% you'll lose. Would you really play that game?

[runeks]

I estimate the probability of BFL not meeting their 350 Mhash/Joule target to be greater than 0.2%.

Couple of things here..
1) Is there any math behind this or is it just a random number you thought of? I get that's where the 500:1 odds come in, but I was wondering if there's anything to back up the claim.

I just figure with them missing their previous target, a 0.2% chance that they'll miss their current one is pretty low. But of course there's no way to know this for sure. The 500:1 was really just a random number I thought of in order to prove my point that without knowing the odds of a bet, there's no way to know if it is a good bet or not. I didn't think anyone would accept that bet.

With regards to profitability, the 0.2% probability comes from the odds, which are 500:1. If I place a bet saying that an event will occur, and I get 500:1 odds, then if that event happens more often than 0.2% of the time I will be profitable in the long run.

Let's say the event happens 0.3% of the time. Then 997 out of 1000 times I will lose 1 unit, and 3 out of 1000 times I will win 500 units. That's an average profit of 3*500-997=503 units per 1000 bets.

2) You're estimating that the probability of BFL not meeting their target is greater than 0.2%? That's saying the probability of BFL meeting their goals is less than or equal to 99.8%. So you're saying that you have no idea what the chances are...but you figure you'll cover almost the entire spectrum by stating "greater than 0.2%"

Well, I don't know the probability as such, but I estimate that it's less than 99.8% of them meeting the target.

Say I went into a casino. I walk up to a game that says the odds of winning aren't known, but there is up to a 99.8% you'll lose. Would you really play that game?

No. Without knowing the odds there's no way to know if it would be profitable. If, however, the odds are greater than 500:1, I would take the bet, as it would be profitable in the long run (see previous example).

All of this actually started from a comment I made regarding the bet on betsofbitcoin, where my point was that without knowing the odds there's no way to know if the bet is good or not.

[Korbman]

I just figure with them missing their previous target, a 0.2% chance that they'll miss their current one is pretty low. But of course there's no way to know this for sure. The 500:1 was really just a random number I thought of in order to prove my point that without knowing the odds of a bet, there's no way to know if it is a good bet or not. I didn't think anyone would accept that bet.

With regards to profitability, the 0.2% probability comes from the odds, which are 500:1. If I place a bet saying that an event will occur, and I get 500:1 odds, then if that event happens more often than 0.2% of the time I will be profitable in the long run.

Let's say the event happens 0.3% of the time. Then 997 out of 1000 times I will lose 1 unit, and 3 out of 1000 times I will win 500 units. That's an average profit of 3*500-997=503 units per 1000 bets.

2) You're estimating that the probability of BFL not meeting their target is greater than 0.2%? That's saying the probability of BFL meeting their goals is less than or equal to 99.8%. So you're saying that you have no idea what the chances are...but you figure you'll cover almost the entire spectrum by stating "greater than 0.2%"

Well, I don't know the probability as such, but I estimate that it's less than 99.8% of them meeting the target.

Say I went into a casino. I walk up to a game that says the odds of winning aren't known, but there is up to a 99.8% you'll lose. Would you really play that game?

No. Without knowing the odds there's no way to know if it would be profitable. If, however, the odds are greater than 500:1, I would take the bet, as it would be profitable in the long run (see previous example).

All of this actually started from a comment I made regarding the bet on betsofbitcoin, where my point was that without knowing the odds there's no way to know if the bet is good or not.

Haha yeah, I get it and all. And at least the loss (if you do indeed lose of course) won't be substantial in your case.

Runeks...you're silly 

[CJGoodings]

I see somebody pulling a Matthew in the near future.

[Inaba]

Good of you to admit it early so no one bets with you.

[CJGoodings]

Real cute, how old are you? 5?

[Inaba]

It's about as cute as you going around trolling threads with your bullshit that you can't back up, so meh.  Go on, lets hear how you cry about things you have absolutely no idea about.  I love to hear you cry and whine and pitch a fit.

[CJGoodings]

Its not bullshit if half the community feels the same way i do.

PS. WAAHHHHHHHH

[Inaba]

Well there you go... it's not half the community and the only way it would "feel the same way you do" is if half of them lived in their parents basement and had an orange saq.

Go on, back up what you say.  I'll take anything.. give me one small fact that you have to back up anything you've said.

I predict from you: WAAAAAAAAA

[CJGoodings]

Thats fine, be ignorant, only shows how retarded the pr fuckhead of bfl really is.

[Inaba]

Haha nailed it.  "I know you are, but what am I!"

[CJGoodings]

Take a pick, theres plenty of threads already out there. All calling out bfl for what it really is, enough "small facts" for you to choose from.

[Inaba]

Waaaaaa!  I can't back up anything I say so you go do my job for me!  WAAAAAAAAA!

[CJGoodings]

Dont cry big baby. Your bawlz will drop soon enough.

Using this thread as an example, when people where mentioning everything possibly wrong with your "products" specs, you were nowhere to be found, nor a single response defending your case to date.

[Inaba]

Wow man!  Did you work hard on that one?  WAAAAAAAAAA

[CJGoodings]

Put on your big boy shorts. Mr. important here, supposedly a model member and businessman, and your wasting your time battling a pothead on a forum; says alot about your character.

[Inaba]

Na, I'm just waiting for the wife to get home so we can go to a movie.  It's either poke fun at you or play Skyrim... it's a 50/50 thing at the moment.

[CJGoodings]

Your inflatable date doesnt count. Wait, had it wrong. Let me guess, you paid bitcoins for your russian bride?

[Korbman]

Wait...is there seriously a full page of childish insults between Inaba and CJGoodings?

God I love the internet lol

[enmaku]

I think you are mistranslating it.  He was clearly speaking of past tense, not future tense, so again, we have no idea what he's trying to say.

Hmm..could be quite right here. I'm a little rusty on my "Incoherent Babbling to English" translation skills. If only Google Translate could help...

[Korbman]

Hmm..could be quite right here. I'm a little rusty on my "Incoherent Babbling to English" translation skills. If only Google Translate could help...

+1

I actually lol'd on this one

[CJGoodings]

Inaba would rather act like a 5 year old then defend his companies products. Makes me wonder, does he even know the tech behind what hes responsible for advertising. From the looks of it, hes just a paid for mouthpiece.

Before he or anybody else comes back with a "neither do you", need i remind you, i'm not the one pre-selling...

[mrb]

CJGoodings: since you don't believe in BFL, how about you put your money where your mouth is by betting against http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=665 ? You could double your money if you are right...

[Korbman]

CJGoodings: since you don't believe in BFL, how about you put your money where your mouth is by betting against http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=665 ? You could double your money if you are right...

Relax guys, CJGoodings is just trolling. He signed his account up at the beginning of September and all of his posts have been troll comments. He's just trying to get a rise out of people.

[arklan]

Your inflatable date doesnt count. Wait, had it wrong. Let me guess, you paid bitcoins for your russian bride?

hang on - they take bitcoins?

[Sitarow]

Inaba would rather act like a 5 year old then defend his companies products. Makes me wonder, does he even know the tech behind what hes responsible for advertising. From the looks of it, hes just a paid for mouthpiece.

Before he or anybody else comes back with a "neither do you", need i remind you, i'm not the one pre-selling...

Whats there to defend?

DO you know something that WE Don't?

We being the ones that are customers?

WE BEING THE ONES THAT TRY TO KEEP BITCOIN from being taken over by select groups???

Please help us out and stop picking needless fights.

EDIT: This is not just for CJGoodings its for all trolls

[Korbman]

Holy crap guys, BFL just increased their predicted ASIC hash rates...my jaw dropped when I saw this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89685.0

[ElectricMucus]

Holy crap guys, BFL just increased their predicted ASIC hash rates...my jaw dropped when I saw this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89685.0

The Single SC, hashing at 40,000 MH/s will consume more than 114W consistently over a 24H period.

lulz

[Korbman]

The Single SC, hashing at 40,000 MH/s will consume more than 114W consistently over a 24H period.

lulz

Ah, let me help you out there. Seems you quoted that sentence out of context.

Looks ok to me, but let me clarify in these terms as well:

You believe, for example, the Single SC will not have a power consumption less than ~114W.  You are, in effect betting:

The Single SC, hashing at 40,000 MH/s will consume more than 114W consistently over a 24H period.  I use this as an example, and we will use the 350 Mhash/Joule as the actual authentication of who wins the bet, but I just wanted to be sure we are talking about the same power consumption metrics.

[ElectricMucus]

Alright I apologize 

[Sitarow]

Alright I apologize  

Does not the recent increase in output per device make this bet null and void?

[Korbman]

Alright I apologize  

Does not the recent increase in output per device make this bet null and void?

Could also be why Inaba was confident in the bet to begin with

[ElectricMucus]

Well the original premise that the performance figures are too good to be true remains - now even more than ever.

The whole put your money where your mouth thing is a taunt - similar to the thing MNW did with his pirate bet extra potential publicity. They can stick that elsewhere. 

[Inaba]

I don't see how this makes the bet null and void.

[runeks]

NOOOOOOO!!!

[mufa23]

NOOOOOOO!!!

haha

[ElectricMucus]

I was the first who called Pirateat40s Savings and Trust a "classical HYIP scam", right after his OP.
Yet I didn't take part in Matthews bet - get it?  

[tvbcof]

I was the first who called Pirateat40s Savings and Trust a "classical HYIP scam", right after his OP.
Yet I didn't take part in Matthews bet - get it?  

Being right about something in Bitcoin-land being a scam is somewhat less than miraculous.  Your performance seem to be somewhat on par with getting heads three times in a row on a coin flip.  None-the-less, good work (seriously) if what you say is accurate, and I don't track things that closely to verify.  You called the BFL think some time ago as evidenced by this thread so if you turn out correct it will be notable in my mind.

[mrb]

I was the first who called Pirateat40s Savings and Trust a "classical HYIP scam", right after his OP.
Yet I didn't take part in Matthews bet - get it?  

It is not my intention to taunt when I tell people to put their money where their mouth is by betting 'disagree' on http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=665 I tell them that to hopefully stop (or at least reduce) the length of the debates on the forum.

So, no, I honestly don't get it why you don't participate in a bet like mine, even a symbolic 1 BTC... If one thing, it tells me that you doubt your own claims (or don't care enough?)

[greyhawk]

It is not my intention to taunt when I tell people to put their money where their mouth is by betting 'disagree' on http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=665 I tell them that to hopefully stop (or at least reduce) the length of the debates on the forum.

No, your intention is this:

Here is the breakdown of the distribution:
45% goes to the bet winners proportional to their bets.
45% goes to the bet winners proportional to their weighted bets.
5% goes to the user who submitted the bet.
5% goes to the site.

[SysRun]

It is not my intention to taunt when I tell people to put their money where their mouth is by betting 'disagree' on http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=665 I tell them that to hopefully stop (or at least reduce) the length of the debates on the forum.

No, your intention is this:

Here is the breakdown of the distribution:
45% goes to the bet winners proportional to their bets.
45% goes to the bet winners proportional to their weighted bets.
5% goes to the user who submitted the bet.
5% goes to the site.

don't forget the sig for posterity

Non-Existent Device
Lots of Hashes and Stuff
To order send 1000 BTC or so to:
1HNLqLrPEwMk8woA91qwX9sRkatRfQik2T

[ElectricMucus]

I was the first who called Pirateat40s Savings and Trust a "classical HYIP scam", right after his OP.
Yet I didn't take part in Matthews bet - get it?  

Being right about something in Bitcoin-land being a scam is somewhat less than miraculous.  Your performance seem to be somewhat on par with getting heads three times in a row on a coin flip. 

Yes, you are right I fully agree.
However: The performance of the masses here is significantly less efficient than a coin flip. There is the tendency to believe in any proposed business model - a manifestation of wishful thinking.

[Frequency]

I was the first who called Pirateat40s Savings and Trust a "classical HYIP scam", right after his OP.
Yet I didn't take part in Matthews bet - get it?  

Being right about something in Bitcoin-land being a scam is somewhat less than miraculous.  Your performance seem to be somewhat on par with getting heads three times in a row on a coin flip. 

Yes, you are right I fully agree.
However: The performance of the masses here is significantly less efficient than a coin flip. There is the tendency to believe in any proposed business model - a manifestation of wishful thinking.

+1

[tvbcof]

I was the first who called Pirateat40s Savings and Trust a "classical HYIP scam", right after his OP.
Yet I didn't take part in Matthews bet - get it?  

Being right about something in Bitcoin-land being a scam is somewhat less than miraculous.  Your performance seem to be somewhat on par with getting heads three times in a row on a coin flip. 

Yes, you are right I fully agree.
However: The performance of the masses here is significantly less efficient than a coin flip. There is the tendency to believe in any proposed business model - a manifestation of wishful thinking.

Ya, it's odd to me that so many people to whom the Bitcoin solution might appeal are prone to be as careless/naive as they seem to be.  One explanation is, perhaps, that we don't really notice the people who are not so, and thus it just seems like more of a notable percentage of the community than it actually is.

[mrb]

It is not my intention to taunt when I tell people to put their money where their mouth is by betting 'disagree' on http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=665 I tell them that to hopefully stop (or at least reduce) the length of the debates on the forum.

No, your intention is this:

Here is the breakdown of the distribution:
45% goes to the bet winners proportional to their bets.
45% goes to the bet winners proportional to their weighted bets.
5% goes to the user who submitted the bet.
5% goes to the site.

I have mined 25+ thousand BTC the last 2 years. I couldn't care less of the comparatively tiny financial profits of this bet.

[greyhawk]

I have mined 25+ thousand BTC the last 2 years. I couldn't care less of the comparatively tiny financial profits of this bet.

Can I interest you in a fully insured no risk 7% ROI per week investment opportunity?

[Korbman]

I have mined 25+ thousand BTC the last 2 years. I couldn't care less of the comparatively tiny financial profits of this bet.

Pics or it didn't happen

Can I interest you in a fully insured no risk 7% ROI per week investment opportunity?

haha +1

[Frequency]

I have mined 25+ thousand BTC the last 2 years. I couldn't care less of the comparatively tiny financial profits of this bet.

Pics or it didn't happen

Can I interest you in a fully insured no risk 7% ROI per week investment opportunity?

haha +1

Did he just said 25 + 1000 so like 1025btc  joking

[abeaulieu]

My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.

They do now.  

By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.

One of my co-workers produced an ASIC for under a couple hundred thousand dollars. It took a couple years but that was essentially because he had never done it before. It seems everytime people mention ASICs they takes someone's WAG and multiply is a couple times.

And by the way, that price included a few thousand chips off the line.

[ElectricMucus]

my co-workers produced an ASIC for under a couple hundred thousand dollars. It took a couple years but that was essentially because he had never done it before. It seems everytime people mention ASICs they takes someone's WAG and multiply is a couple times.

And by the way, that price included a few thousand chips off the line.

Unless you provide some proof of your claim it stands alone. As a claim nothing more...

Once more, certainly possible with FPGA conversion chips.
Interestingly even BFLs competition (which could turn out to be fraudulent too btw) agrees with me...
Look at http://forum.bitsyn.com/viewtopic.php?id=6 under power consumption and then take a deep breath.

[abeaulieu]

my co-workers produced an ASIC for under a couple hundred thousand dollars. It took a couple years but that was essentially because he had never done it before. It seems everytime people mention ASICs they takes someone's WAG and multiply is a couple times.

And by the way, that price included a few thousand chips off the line.

Unless you provide some proof of your claim it stands alone. As a claim nothing more...

Once more, certainly possible with FPGA conversion chips.
Interestingly even BFLs competition (which could turn out to be fraudulent too btw) agrees with me...
Look at http://forum.bitsyn.com/viewtopic.php?id=6 under power consumption and then take a deep breath.

Didn't really need to provide proof. Was just letting you know that they're not always as expensive as people think.

[ElectricMucus]

my co-workers produced an ASIC for under a couple hundred thousand dollars. It took a couple years but that was essentially because he had never done it before. It seems everytime people mention ASICs they takes someone's WAG and multiply is a couple times.

And by the way, that price included a few thousand chips off the line.

Unless you provide some proof of your claim it stands alone. As a claim nothing more...

Once more, certainly possible with FPGA conversion chips.
Interestingly even BFLs competition (which could turn out to be fraudulent too btw) agrees with me...
Look at http://forum.bitsyn.com/viewtopic.php?id=6 under power consumption and then take a deep breath.

Didn't really need to provide proof. Was just letting you know that they're not always as expensive as people think.

You could have made that up on the spot though...
That's why I asked for proof.

[mrb]

my co-workers produced an ASIC for under a couple hundred thousand dollars. It took a couple years but that was essentially because he had never done it before. It seems everytime people mention ASICs they takes someone's WAG and multiply is a couple times.

And by the way, that price included a few thousand chips off the line.

Unless you provide some proof of your claim it stands alone. As a claim nothing more...
Once more, certainly possible with FPGA conversion chips.

ElectricMucus, you need to chill out and accept that producing ASICs can be "a few hundred thousand dollars".

Here is a claim from another ASIC manufacturer (friedcat for his Bitfountain company's asicminer project): only ~$150k for 130nm and ~$500k for 65nm.

[ElectricMucus]

Oh yeah, friedcat is even more shady than BFL and all other mining related biz together.  

An GLBSE asset which lets you rent self-made asic mining power. That is so shady I don't even start trying to educate the suckers falling for it. Did I mention he is in China?  

[mrb]

Oh yeah, friedcat is even more shady than BFL and all other mining related biz together.  

An GLBSE asset which lets you rent self-made asic mining power. That is so shady I don't even start trying to educate the suckers falling for it. Did I mention he is in China?  

Well, since you refuse to bet in http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=665 (apparently poor confidence in your own claims) I will just say this: I will come back to this thread to tell you "I told you so a company as small as BFL can make ASICs that efficient (>350 Mhash/Joule)". See you in the near future  

PS: Korbman: when I started mining, it was with 4x5970 and the difficulty was 12251. I was solving a block every 7 hours. Yes it was that easy...

[ElectricMucus]

We'll see who has the last laughs  

PS: Yes I'm in it just for the lulz and I explained my refusal to bet in detail above. (Besides I'm broke so unless you offer me significant leveraged betting doesn't even sound appealing to me)

[abeaulieu]

my co-workers produced an ASIC for under a couple hundred thousand dollars. It took a couple years but that was essentially because he had never done it before. It seems everytime people mention ASICs they takes someone's WAG and multiply is a couple times.

And by the way, that price included a few thousand chips off the line.

Unless you provide some proof of your claim it stands alone. As a claim nothing more...

Once more, certainly possible with FPGA conversion chips.
Interestingly even BFLs competition (which could turn out to be fraudulent too btw) agrees with me...
Look at http://forum.bitsyn.com/viewtopic.php?id=6 under power consumption and then take a deep breath.

Didn't really need to provide proof. Was just letting you know that they're not always as expensive as people think.

You could have made that up on the spot though...
That's why I asked for proof.

I could have, that's why I'm not really fond of forums. Nothing said really has much validity until there's "proof".

Have you heard of the Deep Crack cryptography ASIC? It's actually probably one of the most relevant ASIC projects to bitcoin mining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFF_DES_cracker

This was done back in 1998 and with a price tag of under $250k. (this was not the project I was talking about previously, but it seemed more relevant). Believe it or not these technologies have become more advanced, and cheaper.

[runeks]

Here's the thing, I have no problem taking the odds from either of you... what I do have a problem with is tying up my BTC for so little return for weeks at a time.  I mean, tying up $1200 to win $12 for a few weeks is just not lucrative for me.  I mean, it's a guaranteed win for me, but the lost revenue of not having access to that money does not make it desirable for me.

So, I'm still interested in an escrowed bet. What amount should I be willing to put in escrow for you to match that amount 500:1?

[ElectricMucus]

my co-workers produced an ASIC for under a couple hundred thousand dollars. It took a couple years but that was essentially because he had never done it before. It seems everytime people mention ASICs they takes someone's WAG and multiply is a couple times.

And by the way, that price included a few thousand chips off the line.

Unless you provide some proof of your claim it stands alone. As a claim nothing more...

Once more, certainly possible with FPGA conversion chips.
Interestingly even BFLs competition (which could turn out to be fraudulent too btw) agrees with me...
Look at http://forum.bitsyn.com/viewtopic.php?id=6 under power consumption and then take a deep breath.

Didn't really need to provide proof. Was just letting you know that they're not always as expensive as people think.

You could have made that up on the spot though...
That's why I asked for proof.

I could have, that's why I'm not really fond of forums. Nothing said really has much validity until there's "proof".

Have you heard of the Deep Crack cryptography ASIC? It's actually probably one of the most relevant ASIC projects to bitcoin mining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFF_DES_cracker

This was done back in 1998 and with a price tag of under $250k. (this was not the project I was talking about previously, but it seemed more relevant). Believe it or not these technologies have become more advanced, and cheaper.

I'm aware of this.

At first the EFF surely would get a better deal than a commercial entity.
Second we don't know how that translates into todays performance. Estimations done on a existing SHA-256 ASIC (a design with multiple methods in it for evaluation of performance) show that BFLs hash/jule figures are an exeragation.
And at last the EFF surely has support from many people in academics and industry, especially in terms of knowlege and manpower. There is no way BFL can compete with that.

[runeks]

my co-workers produced an ASIC for under a couple hundred thousand dollars. It took a couple years but that was essentially because he had never done it before. It seems everytime people mention ASICs they takes someone's WAG and multiply is a couple times.

And by the way, that price included a few thousand chips off the line.

Unless you provide some proof of your claim it stands alone. As a claim nothing more...

Once more, certainly possible with FPGA conversion chips.
Interestingly even BFLs competition (which could turn out to be fraudulent too btw) agrees with me...
Look at http://forum.bitsyn.com/viewtopic.php?id=6 under power consumption and then take a deep breath.

Didn't really need to provide proof. Was just letting you know that they're not always as expensive as people think.

You could have made that up on the spot though...
That's why I asked for proof.

I could have, that's why I'm not really fond of forums. Nothing said really has much validity until there's "proof".

Have you heard of the Deep Crack cryptography ASIC? It's actually probably one of the most relevant ASIC projects to bitcoin mining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFF_DES_cracker

This was done back in 1998 and with a price tag of under $250k. (this was not the project I was talking about previously, but it seemed more relevant). Believe it or not these technologies have become more advanced, and cheaper.

I'm aware of this.

At first the EFF surely would get a better deal than a commercial entity.
Second we don't know how that translates into todays performance. Estimations done on a existing SHA-256 ASIC (a design with multiple methods in it for evaluation of performance) show that BFLs hash/jule figures are an exeragation.
And at last the EFF surely has support from many people in academics and industry, especially in terms of knowlege and manpower. There is no way BFL can compete with that.

You seem very certain. How much are you willing to bet? I'll give you 4:1 odds if you bet that BLF won't be able to deliver 350 Mhash/Joule chips. So if you bet 20 BTC I'll throw 80 BTC in the pot, and the winner takes it all.

[ElectricMucus]

At first bfl is claiming 1GH/Jule and if I were to bet that shouldn't be off more than 10% (Their own margin)
Second, I gave a thorugh explanation why I am not betting on this above. (I don't wanna give them additional publicty and I'm broke)

This thread it mostly about BFLs business model not the principal difficulties of producing an efficent chip. I am not hitting on their competion which has way more sane estimations.
And seeing that even you are willing to give them such a magnifcent margin for failure only strengthens my point.

[ElectricMucus]

Bumping, alas I told you so #1.

Fun fact numero uno: Nobody got asics before the block reward drop.

[abeaulieu]

Bumping, alas I told you so #1.

Fun fact numero uno: Nobody got asics before the block reward drop.

I guess in all technicality Tom and BFL did. Tom doesn't have PCBs to put them on from what I understand. And BFL rev1 ASICs were made but needed a change.

[ElectricMucus]

Bumping, alas I told you so #1.

Fun fact numero uno: Nobody got asics before the block reward drop.

I guess in all technicality Tom and BFL did. Tom doesn't have PCBs to put them on from what I understand. And BFL rev1 ASICs were made but needed a change.

A white lie.
Nobody has proven the Riemann Conjecture either. I might have a proof around here somewhere.... Its only rev. 0.001 and has one error.

[AndrewBUD]

If they had a rev 1 that performed they would have bragged about their working prototype. There is no prototype because they never had a working chip.

I believe the first story

[Frequency]

If they had a rev 1 that performed they would have bragged about their working prototype. There is no prototype because they never had a working chip.

I believe the first story

I think the bragging about it part is so true they even bragged with dummychips so ...

But time will tell and i am glad i have no money in ASIC as today....

I am still confused about halving day..yet excited en also 50% incom loss.... so now we will just be talking ASIC 

[ElectricMucus]

anyway just posting that so I can bump it next year with "I told you so."

It's 01.01.2013 00:16 CEST

Happy 2013 suckers!

I told you so.

[BR0KK]

Happy New Year   and he was right !

[Frequency]

anyway just posting that so I can bump it next year with "I told you so."

It's 01.01.2013 00:16 CEST

Happy 2013 suckers!

I told you so.

+1

Happy New Year also 

[Third Way]

Happy new years from 2012 because this forum is 2 hours ahead of my local time so, hello from the past!


Also, ASICS are a conspiracy by reptilians to mine all the coins and reimburse the suckers that funded it with peanuts.

[runeks]

At 500:1 odds I, runeks, bet 2 BTC that the first line of ASIC-chips shipped by Butterfly Labs (ie. not any later series/revision) in their 'SC' line of products will have an efficiency of less than 350 Mhash/Joule. This figure pertains only to the chip itself, so any inefficiency in the power supply will allow for a higher power usage of the device in which the chip resides. So, power supply inefficiencies are excluded, but other components on the board that are required for the device to work will be included in the power efficiency measurement, as the power efficiency figure is irrelevant if the device - under ideal conditions - can't operate at that efficiency anyway.

At the odds of 500:1 that are in effect for this bet I will win 1000 BTC if I am correct (power efficiency is less 350 Mhash/Joule), and lose 2 BTC if I am incorrect (power efficiency is greater than or equal to 350 Mhash/Joule).

Power efficiency shall be measured over a 24 hour period.

Inaba, if you agree then quote this post and say you agree, or suggest a revision of the terms if you think I'm missing something or being unfair.

I agree with this bet.

I'm writing here to publicly restate my commitment to this bet. Since it's been a while, I think it seems like a good idea for both parties to restate their commitment to the wager publicly. I have invited Inaba to do the same via PM.

[Inaba]

Sure, I re-affirm it.  Our devices would literally melt if they came in at 114w or more. 

Thanks for reminding me... I think I have another bet for a more substantial amount with someone but bugger all if I remember who.  I guess I will have to dig back in my posts.

[Third Way]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH

It's on now ya'll!

[MrTeal]

Sure, I re-affirm it.  Our devices would literally melt if they came in at 114w or more. 

Thanks for reminding me... I think I have another bet for a more substantial amount with someone but bugger all if I remember who.  I guess I will have to dig back in my posts.

What kind of FC package are you using? Not that I don't believe you, but it seems like 14W per chip shouldn't be that dangerous if you can keep the temperature at the interface reasonable. Or do you mean with the stock HS and fan in the case?

[ElectricMucus]

No love for shills ITT.

[ElectricMucus]

At FTC’s Request, Court Halts Bogus Bitcoin Mining Operation [ftc.gov]

I told you so.  

[Raskal]

At FTC’s Request, Court Halts Bogus Bitcoin Mining Operation [ftc.gov]

I told you so.  

That is funny. However besides that appointed receiver assuming command BFL appears to be unaffected. A judge has already said he believes there was foul play but due to lack of evidence and a star "silver tounged" witness for the defense was unable to give them the 24 months in jail they were facing. Who knew stealing multi millions of dollars would get you less jail time than stealing  $1000 from a store or bank :/ so BFL may face a fine for the misuse of company funds charge but they won't get any jail time and the consumers they hustled will be lucky if they get the outdated cards they paid for but any financial settlement to customers is extremely unlikely.

[Bicknellski]

At FTC’s Request, Court Halts Bogus Bitcoin Mining Operation [ftc.gov]

I told you so.  

That is funny. However besides that appointed receiver assuming command BFL appears to be unaffected. A judge has already said he believes there was foul play but due to lack of evidence and a star "silver tounged" witness for the defense was unable to give them the 24 months in jail they were facing. Who knew stealing multi millions of dollars would get you less jail time than stealing  $1000 from a store or bank :/ so BFL may face a fine for the misuse of company funds charge but they won't get any jail time and the consumers they hustled will be lucky if they get the outdated cards they paid for but any financial settlement to customers is extremely unlikely.

Jail time for Sonny V.

FTC will refund people as much as they can given BFL made millions go poof in a cloud of smoke.

Cards? Really I think people that requested a refund months ago are glad this is over don't you?

There will be no more units shipped. Monarchs are dead for ROI. Refunds are the only way to recoup anything.

[Raskal]

At FTC’s Request, Court Halts Bogus Bitcoin Mining Operation [ftc.gov]

I told you so.  

That is funny. However besides that appointed receiver assuming command BFL appears to be unaffected. A judge has already said he believes there was foul play but due to lack of evidence and a star "silver tounged" witness for the defense was unable to give them the 24 months in jail they were facing. Who knew stealing multi millions of dollars would get you less jail time than stealing  $1000 from a store or bank :/ so BFL may face a fine for the misuse of company funds charge but they won't get any jail time and the consumers they hustled will be lucky if they get the outdated cards they paid for but any financial settlement to customers is extremely unlikely.

Jail time for Sonny V.

FTC will refund people as much as they can given BFL made millions go poof in a cloud of smoke.

Cards? Really I think people that requested a refund months ago are glad this is over don't you?

There will be no more units shipped. Monarchs are dead for ROI. Refunds are the only way to recoup anything.

If the FTC belived they had a solid consumer fraud case they would have taken BFL's website down not under temporary receivership. You can still go to their website and order miners so I don't believe this will end the way everyone, including the judge hearing the case, hopes it will. BFL's will be forced to pay a fine and their company will almost certainly not be disolved  and they will be back up and running as soon as the case is decided. I know that sucks a fat one but ultimately the law is the law it's difficult to prove what people's intentions are/were.

[Bicknellski]

<snip>

They have a solid case.

They will reimburse whatever they recently got control of.

Sonny V. broke probation and is going to go to Jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 bucks.

I think you might not realize the depth of the fraud and the potential for the IRS and FBI to be involved. The FTC is just the start.

[Xian01]

If the FTC belived they had a solid consumer fraud case they would have taken BFL's website down not under temporary receivership. You can still go to their website and order miners so I don't believe this will end the way everyone, including the judge hearing the case, hopes it will. BFL's will be forced to pay a fine and their company will almost certainly not be disolved  and they will be back up and running as soon as the case is decided. I know that sucks a fat one but ultimately the law is the law it's difficult to prove what people's intentions are/were.

Assuming your scenario comes true, who is going to continue doing business with Butterfly Labs in the future after their unscrupulous behavior has come to light ?

Either way this FTC investigation shakes out, they are done for as a business. Consumer confidence has been (rightfully) utterly destroyed.

I suspect the FTC action is "just the tip" for what's to come.

[-ck]

Enough BFL threads. The discussion became irrelevant on this thread's topic a long time ago. Locking thread.