Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 06:11:18 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: BFL ASIC is bogus  (Read 21276 times)
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
September 24, 2012, 06:19:25 PM
 #121

[...]
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.
1481047878
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481047878

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481047878
Reply with quote  #2

1481047878
Report to moderator
1481047878
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481047878

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481047878
Reply with quote  #2

1481047878
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
September 24, 2012, 06:23:23 PM
 #122

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
September 24, 2012, 06:33:58 PM
 #123

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
September 24, 2012, 06:38:40 PM
 #124

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.


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

Activity: 742


Its as easy as 0, 1, 1, 2, 3


View Profile
September 24, 2012, 06:39:25 PM
 #125

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

BTC 1JASiNZxmAN1WBS4dmGEDoPpzN3GV7dnjX DVC 1CxxZzqcy7YEVXfCn5KvgRxjeWvPpniK3                     Earn Devcoins Devtome.com
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
September 24, 2012, 06:59:36 PM
 #126

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 Smiley.
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
September 24, 2012, 08:03:04 PM
 #127

Quote
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.

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

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
September 24, 2012, 08:16:34 PM
 #128

Quote
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 Smiley.
crazyates
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
September 24, 2012, 08:21:03 PM
 #129

Quote
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 Smiley.

Tips? 1crazy8pMqgwJ7tX7ZPZmyPwFbc6xZKM9
Previous Trade History - Sale Thread
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
September 24, 2012, 08:40:07 PM
 #130

Yeah, you go'in broke, son!


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

Activity: 241



View Profile
September 24, 2012, 09:07:19 PM
 #131

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
September 24, 2012, 09:16:38 PM
 #132

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 241



View Profile
September 24, 2012, 09:19:13 PM
 #133

What/who is "mrb"?

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
September 24, 2012, 09:23:37 PM
 #134

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.  Undecided

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 386



View Profile WWW
September 24, 2012, 09:27:00 PM
 #135

Can we expand the bet, I will bet with Inaba Smiley

Get paid to be social and visit HypeWizard today!  www.hypewiz.com
AR-15 80% at www.uspatriotarmory.com
my Cryptanalys.is profile
crazyates
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
September 25, 2012, 01:30:12 AM
 #136

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.

Tips? 1crazy8pMqgwJ7tX7ZPZmyPwFbc6xZKM9
Previous Trade History - Sale Thread
el_rlee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1344


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 10:52:25 AM
 #137

"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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
September 28, 2012, 02:37:27 PM
 #138

Quote
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 Smiley.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 02:45:54 PM
 #139

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
September 28, 2012, 03:46:48 PM
 #140

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 Smiley

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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