BFL ASIC is bogus

[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...

[1714007587]

1714007587

[1714007587]

1714007587

[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?