Topic: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — ButterflyLabs 3rd party testing for Dummies (Read 3728 times)

Breath in buddy, breath in ...

Yeah, this is way too tin-foiled out for me...

Thanks Inaba, for all the time you have spent dicking around with both BFL and us mongoloids.

Thanks for all your help Inaba.  

Without Inaba BFL, bogus claims would be completely opaque.  
They likely would still be selling magical unicorns which get 1.05GH on 19.8W on power.

The info Inaba has been able to gleam is incomplete, has some caveats, and there were some bumps in the road however without his (uncompensated) time and effort we would have absolutely no insight into the product.

ty inaba.

haha oh man Inaba, "no good deed goes unpunished" eh?

You haven't quoted anything though.
Half of "what I said" are quotations from you, and the rest are flat comments on the facts.
If reading this thead gives you a feeling that there is a "theory that you have something to hide", it must be coming from your own quotations.

Where did I comment on the duration between your posts?
If I am not making any comments on this point, I don't see how that could be serving anything at all.

It is not as simple as a black and white answer "comment / no comment" "good / not good".
If you comment to give credit to BFL without supporting evidence, or you omit to comment when BFL makes wild claims (that appear later to be unfounded) where they cite you as a witness, you are not being neutral.
This is what people challenge you on. Be neutral, stick to hard facts, learn to receive feedback instead of dodging it and taking it personnaly, and people won't have a say.
Whether this translates in making comments or not making comments isn't the problem.

Anyway this is going nowhere : we are going round in circles.
The longer it gets, the more that makes you look like a martyr, and me like a troll, so I am done with this debate.
If you don't think that your reports are misleading, so be it.
All the raw facts are here in this thead for people to make their own opinion.

+1.

At least some of the great unwashed masses out here appreciate what you are doing. When the story is done being told, then, and only then, can we use your observations to inform our opinions and actions. Thanks for the time you have put in for the benefit of many.

Probably the best advice yet, I think...

+1

Hey, people, it's not even funny anymore.

The theory that I have something to hide.


I already gave you an example of inaccurate time stamps.  You claim that I waited an entire day to clarify that the first "test" was not in the DC, when in fact it was less than 15 minutes and the next post that I made that clarified that fact.  Post 891 - 893 I believe, but I don't have the time to check those post numbers at the moment.  I will when I get back.



And how is this full of hot air?  People bitch when I backup BFL's statements with my observations and opinions - somehow this makes me a shill.  People bitch when I don't comment on BFL's statements, somehow this translates as me being misleading or having something to hide.  WTF, seriously?  How am I suppose to cater to that?

Pick on, pick the other.  I don't care. I will do either, but I physically can not do both.

here's a new fact .... "freequant is a troll", please stop feeding him, end of fact

I had the courtesy not to attribute you negative intentions, and not to charge you of any accusations beside of that of being misleading in your way of reporting things (which is true and backed by facts).
It seems that you do not have the same principles...
So, you charge me, off the top of your head, of "altering times to fit my theory"?

First which theory?
Now that you said that I have a "theory that you have something to hide", please quote any of my answers that proves your claim.

Second which timestamps?
I am not claiming that the timestamps are perfectly accurate because, the first thread being locked, I had to do manual quotations which is error prone (regeneration of epoch timestamps from the dates).
But at any rate, I strongly doubt that this would change in any way any of the facts reported earlier.
I you disagree, please give an example of inaccurate timestamp, and show how correcting it makes any of what I said invalid.

Your answer is so full of hot air that I just don't know what to tell you.
There is only one objective truth, and it is made of facts.
As a trusted third party mandated to verify the facts, when to comment and what to tell should have been obvious to you.
 

Also watching. 

Watching

+1

So I'm not sure how to reply to this without a "Wall of Text" which I would like to avoid.  It got out of hand in the last thread and I would like to avoid that same mistake here.

With regards to the "ground rules," I am sorry but I fail to see how one could take the "ground rules" to be test protocol both contextually (important) and also literally (less important, but I can see where one could conflate test protocols and ground rules).  Clearly it has happened, at least in one persons case, so I apparently underestimated peoples understanding of the situation.  That said, the ground rules refer to the rules set forth by BFL for what I am/was able to disclose and what I was not able to disclose.


I did bring my laptop, but we were unable to get the software operating on it.  The compile issue which I had mentioned earlier.  I find this part to be immaterial though, but I thought I would mention it.  You are also strategically leaving out parts of my posts that are important, and you are altering times that I said things to fit your apparent theory that I have something to hide.  I find this both insulting and offensive, especially since ANYONE can verify for themselves that what you've quoted here is inaccurate on numerous levels.  For example:

I said on post 891 that we did some "simulated testing, but no live testing tonight."  This would indicate that at the very least, part of the "protocol" was not followed.  I then went on in subsequent posts, within 15 minutes (actually the next post I made) clarifying that we were not in the DC - I did not wait an entire to day make mention of this fact... then 40 minutes later, I said that since it wasn't a live test I wasn't concerned with why it said "0" processors as it wasn't a live test... I stated that I was more concerned with the power consumption at that point.  So clearly, within 40 minutes of my first post, this was not any sort of rigorous test.  Then, the following day is when I laid out the protocol.


I did not mention it because it was not and is not relevant.  Until we (I) am able to test a unit fully on my own terms, it's completely immaterial whether or not we use their hardware or my hardware - in either case, it's a) development hardware, not shipping hardware, b) incomplete hardware, c) incomplete software.  With all of that stacked against the unit, it's really irrelevant what hardware the testing is running on.  But for the record, the "plan" was changed when it was clear that the hardware would not operate in a fully functional manner - at that point I decided it was completely superfluous to waste time going to the datacenter to conduct any "testing" that we might be able to conduct, which we could conduct in my office building instead.


You are, again, being inaccurate or taking things out of context.  Regardless of what BFL said the test was going to be, my next post on the subject should have dispelled any of those previous statements as being accurate:

Post 1291:

We did a small demo, not a live demo, or an official demo, or any of the other terms that you've been throwing around.  I also stated that I pulled test data from my server - why would I need to do that if the unit was operating properly?  WHy just two midstates?  Why  report the nonces?  Why not just say "Hey yeah, it did what it was suppose to do at a XX hashrate?"  I mean, the fact that I gave details that would seem to indicate something other than a "normal" operating mode was in process didn't raise any red flags?  Perhaps I just give people too much credit for critical thinking.

But to help clarify that, I also helpfully included in the same post:


If there were technical issues, how could this be a live demo?


Now the above quote (also from the same post) is about the only place I can see where there would be legitimate confusion and I agree, I did not explicitly say that I tested this on their laptop (well, actually it was a combination of my own and theirs, as I was pulling test data from my laptop and emailing it to them so that we could cut and paste the data into the test bench program.)... but as it was not really a valid test beyond showing that the hardware functions, I did not feel that test conditions needed to be spelled out.  But I apologize for any confusion that may have caused.


Yes, there are countless occurances of that, however after every "test," it was pretty clearly indicated that things did not go as planned and I constantly updated with a future test is in the works.  If the test was conducted, why have a future test?  That's like looking for your car keys after you've already found them.  As for not finding any evidence, go back and read my previous posts, there's plenty of evidence and I've already gone over some of it above.

The 30 Nov test was meant to prove that, but it was indicated that it did not due to technical difficulties and it was rescheduled.  That was not ambiguous.


So you've said this several times, I just quoted this particular one to address it.  You say that I did not comment to moderate the announcement... but you (and others) also critize me when I do comment on their announcements as being a shill or supporting them, or being blinded by them, etc...  So which is it?  Do you want me to comment/moderate BFL or do you want me to be impartial and let BFL speak for themselves while I report what I see and my own feelings on the subject?  It's impossible to do both.


I am making a statement of fact.  It does what it's designed to do - hash SHA256 blocks.  I did not say it was legitimate, I said "adequately demonstrates that it at least the hardware does what it's designed to do" - I added the bold text.  I still stand by this statement.


I do not.  I compare what I saw with what is publicly available tech spec wise for other products in the same category.  This was not on behalf of BFL, this was in response to a query made by another member who was not BFL.


There was no test executed as previously described, as much was said, so how or why would I indicate that test protocol was not followed on a test that didn't happen?  I would think that would be self evident.  Perhaps not.


Why would you not be doing that anyway?  You should always treat these things with healthy skepticism. 

My credibility comes from my involvement with the community for months (Since March or April, I forget) and the fact that I run a reputable, long standing (comparatively) pool.  I volunteered a) because I was curious myself and b) I was literally right across the street, purely by coincidence.  I have not, nor do I care if anyone trusts me as being a legitimate member of the community beyond people trusting in my pool and patronizing it.  As I have said in a previous post, I am doing this as much for my own edification and to base my own decisions on purchase as I am for any other reason - if I can provide a valuable service to the community in the process then I am happy to do.

I also did not dodge any questions; the questions were immaterial.  No official live test has been conducted, the software they sent me at the time did not compile so there was no verification to be done to begin with.  We did not use the software they sent me, but used a test program that required us to cut and paste the data by hand, so comparing binaries would be futile.

AAaaaand another wall 'o text. My apologies. 

Ah yes, I remember Luke-Jr mentioned he'd been writing mining client code for it that he thought you might be using for your test. It's unfortunate that it seems to be taking so long to get working code. (If it helps, I released some poclbm-based code a while ago that could probably be adapted to the BitForce boards with a little work, though it's hard to be sure given that they haven't released any interface specs or code. It's not a general purpose solution but...)

If you guys frequented IRC like normal people instead of skulking on a forum, you might learn some interesting tidbits.

It would be nice to have a few Single box working and orders coming in. The "Rig Box" then would be "ready to ship in 6 weeks" and they earn/scam a nice trip to Thailand