Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 11:22:21 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [Announcement] Butterfly Labs  (Read 64023 times)
crazyates
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile
September 11, 2012, 05:04:03 AM
 #221

But lets move on. As mentioned by Kano, competitors to BFL are offering mining devices to certain key developers to ensure compatibility, and reward said devs. Will this be the case with BFL, or is the official stance remaining the same: where 3rd party devs will have pre-release, remote access to the hardware, but EasyMiner will remain BFL's recommended software?

Tips? 1crazy8pMqgwJ7tX7ZPZmyPwFbc6xZKM9
Previous Trade History - Sale Thread
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513077741
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513077741

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513077741
Reply with quote  #2

1513077741
Report to moderator
1513077741
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513077741

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513077741
Reply with quote  #2

1513077741
Report to moderator
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 05:06:54 AM
 #222

Please don't mistake my volumous writing as being excitable.  I type 90 - 120 wpm, so I whip out long missives like that in a couple minutes tops; it's a common complaint.  Anyway, I did post as Inaba and then at the request of LazyOtto reposted it as BFL_Josh 4 posts below it.  It was a cut and paste of the original post and I'm sorry, but I do not consider that deleting a post, especially in the context I am being accused of, specifically to hide information or distort the facts.  Additionally, I'm being accused of doing it multiple times in that thread alone which under any circumstance is just plain false. 

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

Activity: 78



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 05:19:50 AM
 #223

Well, I'm not sure I want to really get into the discussion with Kano et al with regards to hardware access.  But here's the simple truth in a nutshell:

For the development of the FPGA, as evidenced by our shipping times (not counting the past month or so), we simply did not have the hardware to spare to just send out.  Everything, literally every single piece of hardware that was assembled and functioanl got shipped out immediately (after a burn in of course).  We did not keep any hardware back for testing, development, etc... we shipped everything.  Stripped the whole place bare.  I kid you not... this is one of the reasons EasyMiner was so delayed - we had nothing to test it with.  We are catching up now, and hence we have been able to put some resources into continuing the development of EasyMiner. 

Personally, I would have been happy to send a unit to Kano at some point when there was hardware available... but lets look at the facts - our shipping time was delayed and we take a constant beating in the forums both then, now and we will likely take it into the future.  Where was that hardware to come from?  Someone's order?  Then we'd have the same issue, just someone else that was unhappy.  Then on top of that, as much as I respect Kano's work, he's constantly badmouthing BFL on every count so it makes it really hard to justify showing the love at this point.  I'm not saying it couldn't happen or shouldn't happen.  If I were overseeing that sort of thing back then, things would have probably played out a bit differently, but I wasn't and there's nothing I can do about it. 

What I can do is fix things going forward, but again, it makes it really hard when Kano does not appear to even want to reach out and let me fix stuff and mend fences, but just keeps bad mouthing BFL at every turn.  What's kind of funny is we (BFL) have been working on a plan for showing the love to the developers, but it's not something we have discussed (or plan to discuss) publicly as of yet, since the details aren't entirely nailed down and we are working really hard to get the ASICs out the door on time.  Yes, even Kano was included in that.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 05:53:06 AM
 #224

...

Bitminter has already stated multiple times that they will have support for BFL's new miners by the time they ship.  That's good enough for me.
Well true, people have made comments about hoping to support BFL's ASIC devices.
I stand corrected.

However, to clarify what support BFL have given to this NECESSARY part of the process of using their devices is:
1) BFL says they have EasyMiner in response to my comments about them expecting free miner development
2) Their support of external software development is no more than: we'll let you access our hardware remotely

... that is what BFL have said ............................

... then I read the post above ...

If Josh wants to say this is no longer true - fine - but that's what it has been up until now ... so why was it that up until today?
Is it perhaps related to the fact that bASIC has put BFL in a corner? So you've now been forced to change your mind?

... I will also add that if you think to blame your software development woes on me - you really have lost the plot.
Ignore me - send one to ckolivas - tell him he's gonna get one.
I won't kiss ass here to get what I want. I will have my own opinion of what pisses me off and I will make it clear.
If you don't like  that - feel free to put me in a corner and say "bad bad kano - no BFL ASIC for you - you don't kiss ass" Tongue

It was my discussion with you in the threads here that led you to finalising it with saying EasyMiner was the answer, and you directly implying you don't need the free software development.
What has changed since that .... ?

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
BFL_Josh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 06:40:56 AM
 #225

Quote
If Josh wants to say this is no longer true - fine - but that's what it has been up until now ... so why was it that up until today?
Is it perhaps related to the fact that bASIC has put BFL in a corner? So you've now been forced to change your mind?

... I will also add that if you think to blame your software development woes on me - you really have lost the plot.
Ignore me - send one to ckolivas - tell him he's gonna get one.
I won't kiss ass here to get what I want. I will have my own opinion of what pisses me off and I will make it clear.
If you don't like  that - feel free to put me in a corner and say "bad bad kano - no BFL ASIC for you - you don't kiss ass" Tongue

It was my discussion with you in the threads here that led you to finalising it with saying EasyMiner was the answer, and you directly implying you don't need the free software development.
What has changed since that .... ?

Kano, I don't want to badmouth Tom or his accomplishments but honestly, his offering is not really competitive to our products.  Our price and performance are far superior in every category so it's not really an issue. I'm glad he's putting out his offering to give people a choice though, but in the end, it all comes down to money and profit for the majority of miners, not ideology.  Do you really think $230 is worth losing over 30% of your hashing power and consuming an enormous amount of power in the process?  You might think so, but most people won't.  Heck, you'd probably make up that $230 in the first few months in power savings alone.

But I am, once again, trying to reach out and mend fences but you keep throwing it back in my/BFL's face.

Kissing ass has never been on my agenda.  However, what is on my agenda is a) not blind hatred far exceeding the cause and b) an complete disregard for the fact that I have been trying to make changes for the better with regards to community relations and yes developers are part of that community.

With regards to our discussion, you made a blanket statement that we "needed" (as in, it was a requirement to have mining software and that there was none since no developer would work on it) and I corrected you that we have EasyMiner, so that statement was not true.  Would we like to have cgminer support?  Sure, but is it required?  No, our devices will mine just fine without it.  So nothing has changed since that, we are still in the same position.  We have the backing of basically all the popular miners except (apparently) cgminer... that being the case, why would we want to support a miner that doesn't want to support us?  This is not really a rhetorical question, because I would like to hear your answer to this. For the record, we planned on supporting you/cgminer anyway regardless of what you respond with, but I would like to hear why you think we should support someone who clearly does not want to support us and has only begrudgingly done so up to this point?
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 08:20:17 AM
 #226

...
But I am, once again, trying to reach out and mend fences but you keep throwing it back in my/BFL's face.

Kissing ass has never been on my agenda.  However, what is on my agenda is a) not blind hatred far exceeding the cause and b) an complete disregard for the fact that I have been trying to make changes for the better with regards to community relations and yes developers are part of that community.

With regards to our discussion, you made a blanket statement that we "needed" (as in, it was a requirement to have mining software and that there was none since no developer would work on it) and I corrected you that we have EasyMiner, so that statement was not true.  Would we like to have cgminer support?  Sure, but is it required?  No, our devices will mine just fine without it.  So nothing has changed since that, we are still in the same position.  We have the backing of basically all the popular miners except (apparently) cgminer... that being the case, why would we want to support a miner that doesn't want to support us?  This is not really a rhetorical question, because I would like to hear your answer to this. For the record, we planned on supporting you/cgminer anyway regardless of what you respond with, but I would like to hear why you think we should support someone who clearly does not want to support us and has only begrudgingly done so up to this point?

Because I read what you say ...

You are saying that "need" is something I am inventing, but you know as well as I do that without the support of the free miners, BFL would not be where they are today.
If you think otherwise, then this discussion will get nowhere - coz I certainly do not agree with that.

"We have the backing of basically all the popular miners except (apparently) cgminer"
This is such a one sided and ridiculous statement it's not funny.
It blatantly pushes in everyone's face one of the biggest issues I have with the whole BFL <-> miner development relationship.
However, I have never said that other developers would not work on software for you.
I've not even said cgminer wouldn't - ckolivas' controls the project, not me.
If he wants to add anything, he can do so as he pleases.
If he doesn't want some of my code - he can reject it as he pleases.
I do know some of his discussion with BFL on this exact subject ...
I do ask you to explain why you think miner software developers should work on software for your devices for free?
You are directly implying that yet again in that statement, and the ONLY change to that is a comment by you today - never in the past from BFL.

What Tom has done, is up front clearly state support for some developers, (myself included) and then the next day you make an attempt to mend the issue and try to make it sound like it's got nothing to do with BFL - it's my fault Tongue

Up to this point I have DEFINITELY begrudgingly supported BFL since they have done NOTHING for me except profit from the person who bought a BFL from them and then that person sold it to me at their cost price + shipping to me ... and got it to me in 4.5 days when BFL would have taken at least 10 weeks back then.
Hell - I even put BFL support in the cgminer API before I even had a BFL device - why? - for completeness (maybe someone gave me some BTC to do it? I can't remember?) - and certainly not in any way for BFL's sake - only for the sake of those users who use cgminer.
Why would I do it for BFL's sake?
Why would I spend my time for free to do something to help BFL make more profits and I gain nothing at all from it?
(OK I do actually do that in IRC and on the forum, but I guess that's my own choice to waste my time doing that)

It may no longer be that today, but it was certainly correct in my opinion before today.

I don't see at all why you think I should have gone out of my way to do more than that?
There was absolutely no reason - all I saw up until today is BFL saying: sux to be you developers, work for us for free, that is to BFL's advantage - but we even say we don't "need" you to do that so it doesn't make us look bad expecting you to do it for free.

Even saying "Oh we didn't have any hardware to supply developers" is bullshit.
What it really means is "We didn't allocate any hardware for that coz we didn't think it was needed and we could get it for free anyway"
And you will not be able to convince me that I am wrong with my judgment on that statement.
Tell me how each part of that statement was wrong?

I do not think you must support me.
You haven't. Even if I have already done the reverse begrudgingly or indirectly ...
I simply say that if you want developer support you should support the developers.
If you did provide support to me for BFL ASIC devices then I would probably supply support in return - or reject the offer of support from you ...
(and I will point out that I do that in real life - I often make decisions NOT based on profit - I don't consider money a commodity worth caring too much about - even though I have very little - which is probably due to that also Tongue)

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
PulsedMedia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 10:43:35 AM
 #227

oh, so much useless drama

http://PulsedMedia.com - Semidedicated rTorrent seedboxes
LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 02:46:29 PM
 #228

I was trying to avoid calling you a liar, but the bottom line is you are lying.
Interesting.

I think the best response here is by using your words:
"please provide some evidence"

In this thread Inaba made a post which in context clearly 'shoulda' been made by BFL_Josh. When I pointed that out (which I thought was an attempt to be helpful) Inaba posted that 'It doesn't really matter since everyone knows I'm using two accounts'. (paraphrased from memory since the original post is deleted.)

My post where I pointed out the mistake, here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97269.msg1151000#msg1151000

The post I was responding to:

Deleted.

Post that I paraphrased above.

Deleted.

Which is when I referenced Orwells' "Memory Hole" here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97269.msg1151255#msg1151255

"The only post that was "deleted" was the one where you yourself bitched about which account I was posting with"
And the one where you stated that it didn't matter which account you posted with.
That is two. That is multiple.

In my capacity as a representative of BFL, I post as BFL_Josh, for other things, I post as Inaba.

I guess "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html

In the post referenced above I pointed out to you where, IMO, you had mistakenly posted as Inaba when you meant to use the BFL_Josh account. Your response, now deleted, was that it didn't really matter.

Later, after this post:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97269.msg1151111#msg1151111
you deleted the post where you stated 'it doesn't matter', and the first one I pointed out. And, probably, reposted the contents of the first one erroneously made as Inaba as BFL_Josh. As you should have to begin with. (Which is a pretty damn trivial issue. But calling me a liar isn't.)

This is the sequence. These are facts.

You have escalated the tone here multiple times:
"those individuals lied and any accusations they made were completely fabricated"
"so please be careful what you accuse me of, because I can prove you wrong if you are just making things up"

So, please. Prove me wrong. Or apologize.
BFL_Josh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 03:17:13 PM
 #229

Because I read what you say ...

You are saying that "need" is something I am inventing, but you know as well as I do that without the support of the free miners, BFL would not be where they are today.
If you think otherwise, then this discussion will get nowhere - coz I certainly do not agree with that.

I don't think otherwise, it's a reasonable statement and I believe it to be true.

Quote
"We have the backing of basically all the popular miners except (apparently) cgminer"
This is such a one sided and ridiculous statement it's not funny.
It blatantly pushes in everyone's face one of the biggest issues I have with the whole BFL <-> miner development relationship.
However, I have never said that other developers would not work on software for you.

Actually, you have, at least by implication.  You asked (and I'm paraphrasing here)  how are we going to sell our devices if we don't have mining software.  That implies that no developer is going to work with us.  At the time it was false for a number of reasons and it's still false now.  But lets break down this argument for a second:

Kano, have you now or do you ever demand AMD (or nVidia and Intel to a lesser extent) pay homage to the developers to support their hardware?  No?  Why not?  They owe you just as much as any other hardware developer, since you (or another developer) are required to write code to support their devices, both GPU and CPU.  As a software developer myself, I find your argument spurious at best.  I write software because a) I like to write software and b) I like people to use my software.  My pool would not be where it's at today without the users. A number of my other software products would not be where they are today without the users (ShowEQ being the biggest example).  I add support for various features in my software to attract users and have people enjoy it, not because I expect a reward from them.

Take out AMD support from cgminer, see how far it gets at that point. Why was it put in there in the first place, were you expecting a reward from AMD? No, you wanted to attract users.

Quote
I do know some of his discussion with BFL on this exact subject ...
I do ask you to explain why you think miner software developers should work on software for your devices for free?
You are directly implying that yet again in that statement, and the ONLY change to that is a comment by you today - never in the past from BFL.

I only know bits and pieces of BFLs discussion with ckolivas, so I can't really comment on that.  I do know that going forward, those discussions will/would be very different.  But as far as why I think miner software developers should work on our devices for free, please see above.  If you want your software to be popular, you have to support the popular devices, otherwise your software will fail.  Do you honestly think cgminer would be where it's at today if it did not support BFL devices?  It's a symbiotic relationship.

Now that said, I am absolutely 100% on board with showing the love to the developers in the form of hardware donations to the cause because it's nice and it's the right thing to do.  But for you to say or even imply that it's entirely one sided is completely disingenuous.  You yourself even admit you do things because you want to and it's your choice.

Quote
What Tom has done, is up front clearly state support for some developers, (myself included) and then the next day you make an attempt to mend the issue and try to make it sound like it's got nothing to do with BFL - it's my fault Tongue

I'm not making any attempt, you brought it up.  As I said, we have already made plans to show support to the bitcoin developer community and those plans have been in place (if not finalized) long before Tom made any announcements.  You can believe that or not, it doesn't matter and it doesn't change our plans and you'll still be included on those plans regardless of the animosity you hold for BFL, if for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.  

Quote
I don't see at all why you think I should have gone out of my way to do more than that?
There was absolutely no reason - all I saw up until today is BFL saying: sux to be you developers, work for us for free, that is to BFL's advantage - but we even say we don't "need" you to do that so it doesn't make us look bad expecting you to do it for free.

Who was expecting you to do anything for free?  When/where did BFL say "Hey bitches, write code for us!  And do it for free!"  Can you direct me to that post or PM or email?  I mean, I suppose that could have happened prior to me coming on board with BFL, but I very seriously doubt it.  In fact, let me tell you how it really happened (because I do know this part):

1. BFL was not familiar with the mining scene and approached Ufasoft to create software for them and paid that developer to do so.
2. During the development process, the BFL information leaked and we started our journey (we being the Bitcoin community) back in late October/Early November of 2011.
3. Ufasoft development continued, but scattered support for BFL devices started creeping into cgminer and poclbm.
4. Frustrated with the Ufasoft result and worn out from all the complaining, work begins on EasyMiner.
5. Eventually full blown support is put into cgminer, since the Ufasoft software was a major pain in the ass to use.  BFL never requested this directly to my knowledge and EasyMiner development slows down.
7. BFGMiner splits off from CGMiner due to philosophical differences, mostly unrelated directly to BFL, but mostly related to FPGA in general.
8. EasyMiner development picks back up

So as you can see, BFL did, in fact, commission a developer to create software for the BFL devices.  It didn't really work out as well as they hoped, but by that time ckolivas et al had already added support to cgminer, so it wasn't really a big issue.  If it were, BFL would have figured out a solution, either by paying another developer or finishing EasyMiner.  ckolivas, Luke-jr, etc... put support in their programs for BFL because they were popular devices, not because BFL demanded or expected it.  It was already there by the time BFL decided to switch the focus away from Ufasoft.

Quote
I simply say that if you want developer support you should support the developers.

I absolutely agree with this.

Quote
If you did provide support to me for BFL ASIC devices then I would probably supply support in return - or reject the offer of support from you ...
(and I will point out that I do that in real life - I often make decisions NOT based on profit - I don't consider money a commodity worth caring too much about - even though I have very little - which is probably due to that also Tongue)

I'll be straight up with you here, if you wern't so vocal in your hate for BFL, the "support" probably would have come long before I came on board.  That's the plain and simple truth.

crazyates
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile
September 11, 2012, 03:30:06 PM
 #230

Hey bitches, write code for us!  And do it for free!

I'm keeping this because I like out-of-context quotes. Wink

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

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 03:48:26 PM
 #231

I do think you're obligated to include the quotation marks and a [...] where the rest of the sentence was cut out.

Otherwise, nice quote, yes Smiley.
crazyates
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile
September 11, 2012, 03:57:47 PM
 #232

I do think you're obligated to include the quotation marks and a [...] where the rest of the sentence was cut out.

Otherwise, nice quote, yes Smiley.

It's funny, dammit!  Shocked

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

Activity: 1134


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 04:27:08 PM
 #233

I'll do it, Inaba_Josh. Send me a unit! Cheesy

I overhauled Luke-jr's BFL code to make it more robust, but also slight more efficent (cpu usage wise).
Gyrsur
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


#BEL+++


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 04:32:42 PM
 #234

Wondering why BFL is still searching an "Engineer - Mandarin language skills  (Must live in Asia)" according to BFL website? does this mean the chips are still in the design phase and production in Asia did not started?
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 05:15:39 PM
 #235

Wondering why BFL is still searching an "Engineer - Mandarin language skills  (Must live in Asia)" according to BFL website? does this mean the chips are still in the design phase and production in Asia did not started?
I doubt this is the case, unless BFL is grossly incompetent. Sticking to their October/November release date without even having started production seems like wishful thinking at best. BFL doesn't seem grossly incompetent so I assume this isn't the case.
BFL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 217



View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 05:22:52 PM
 #236

Hi Kano,

I'd like to clarify what has previously been clarified elsewhere more than once.  (maybe you missed it).

It's always been company policy to support as many software miners as possible.  We've paid coding bounties for specific features (Luke Jr) Serge & others, we have extended hardware availability and we have repeatedly offered log in access to equipment (both singles and mini rigs) to anyone wishing to pursue software development.  

We have enjoyed fruitful relationships with the developers of all the major software miners.  You're the only one who's been difficult in any way.  Everyone else including ckolivas has been helpful, kind and informative.  

Regarding the launch of ASIC, we have previously pledged early ASIC devices to ckolivas, ufasoft, bitminter & BFG authors.  

BFL




Butterfly Labs  -  www.butterflylabs.com  -  Bitcoin Mining Hardware
ursa
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 10:55:47 PM
 #237

Anyone who signs a message ,signs it with his name...
why BFL does't sign like this?
Eg:

" John Doe,
     BFL"

cablepair
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


These days, i am Crazy.


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 11:23:24 PM
 #238

Quote

Kano, I don't want to badmouth Tom or his accomplishments but honestly, his offering is not really competitive to our products.  Our price and performance are far superior in every category so it's not really an issue. I'm glad he's putting out his offering to give people a choice though, but in the end, it all comes down to money and profit for the majority of miners, not ideology.  Do you really think $230 is worth losing over 30% of your hashing power and consuming an enormous amount of power in the process?  You might think so, but most people won't.  Heck, you'd probably make up that $230 in the first few months in power savings alone.



Hi,

I really do not wish to engage in an argument, and to be honest I do not have a problem with BFL or Inaba and would love to keep things civil at all costs.

However a portion of this quote is a lie and it is wrong of you to do this as I never spread mis-information about BFL in my thread.

"and consuming an enormous amount of power in the process?"

You have absolutely NO CLUE the energy efficiency of my bASIC mining device (it is extremely efficient, and uses less electricity than the ModMiner Quad) and I have serious doubts that you even know the exact energy efficiency of your own device(s)

Furthermore the bASIC mining unit offers a minimum (un-optimized) 27Gh/s of Bitcoin mining speed which will very likely increase substantially with proper firmware and software integration once I get these units into the very capable hands of the Bitcoin communities best and brightest developers.

Now, I do not have the man power, or resources to equal that of BFL I admin that, but The reality of the situation is, the bASIC unit is very good competition for your mid grade SC Single unit and could meet or exceed the speed and/or energy efficiency of that device, and at this point it could not be proven otherwise.

I very much want to keep this competition friendly but we do not want to go down the road of trying to lie and spread mis-information about eachother. As I am sure you would agree it would not be good for either of us, so lets just stick to the truth on both sides until we actually have the cold hard facts ok Inaba?

thank you.

Tom



phantastisch
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960



View Profile
September 11, 2012, 11:34:27 PM
 #239

Guys for outsiders you are still fighting around with specs for vaporware... so... do this per PM or reveal some information.

Plagiarize, let no one elses work evade your eyes.
Remember why the good lord made your eyes, so don't shade your eyes but plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize. Only be sure always to call it please 'Alternative Coin'.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
September 11, 2012, 11:44:13 PM
 #240

You are saying that "need" is something I am inventing, but you know as well as I do that without the support of the free miners, BFL would not be where they are today.
Except that while you claim to be inventing, you're forgetting that BFL support came from me, and you and Con only decided to fork it so that you could steal credit for it...

I overhauled Luke-jr's BFL code to make it more robust, but also slight more efficent (cpu usage wise).
P_Shep definitely did make notable contributions to the BFL driver. Smiley

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 »
  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!