BFL ASIC is bogus

[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...