Topic: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2) - page 73. (Read 146936 times)

I know you've said you dont receive any discount  from them but seriously?

You dont have to defend their position. If you're truly as neutral as you said, you would just leave BFL to clarify all the craps about them. Its not your job. So far you havent gotten a test you promised earlier. DOES NOT matter what the reason is (you even defended their technical issue? ), you should just wait until the test and final report. So no you're not neutral here, what you believe is not what we ask/care.

Its their (BFL) own benefits to have you to test their product, not the other way around.

Suddenly this thread is full of your post explaining why you believe this is not a scam, or the product is real and production is under way.

So i'm asking again, what is your deal with them?

I love sheep like you. I can treat you like crap (hey if you're not buying gtfo) and you will still come back to my business.

BFL, i cant imagine how your after sale service is like... oh wait you dont give a rat because this is a con.
Btw, is that you Ninja Queen been posting all a long?

Goat...

Among other qualities, you are at least entertaining.  I'll give you that.

Regards,
BFL

Keep up your work with BFL ! I hope that you can come up with enough proof to silence some people here.

I know what wireless is available in the building we were in and I know the response times on those routers - they are way too congested to be of any value for that sort of thing.  For 3G, I agree, a few hundred ms, so you're looking at .5 seconds on a good day, probably longer on a bad one, so lets go with .5 round trip.  That leaves 3.5 seconds to hash ~4.2 billion nonces, which is (off the top of my head) about 1.3 (?) GH/s?  That means either a custom build FPGA rig hidden somewhere (expensive) or a multi GPU rig hidden somewhere with custom mining software able to split the data into partitioned nonce ranges (less expensive, more complex) - and all this would have to be done in LESS than 3.5 seconds, meaning they'd need I'd say at least double the hashrate to overcome the latency issues, so 2.6 GH/s.

Now, all that said, please tell me how likely it is that they have a big, complicated back end with custom backend code and custom front end clients to fool people into believing that the preliminary test of a product at least was able to conduct SHA256 hashes... or... wait for it ... they had a device capable of producing SHA256 hashes at the hashrates observed?  Mind you, they do not have this complicated back end to get people to believe in a product they are selling... only to fool people into believing there might be a product in the future.  And prior to people believing in this product they will have to produce a real product that does what it claims and let it "into the wild" to be raped and pillaged by yours truly to prove that it does what they say it does?

Now keep in mind that 3.5 seconds is under ideal conditions and where we were is decidedly not ideal conditions.  Additionally they were ready and willing to go to the datacenter which is essentially one giant faraday cage and would have prevented any sort of reliable (if any) data connection over wireless (either Wifi or 3G).

thought it was implied.
Third party: a person or entity who is not involved in an interaction or relationship [of buying/selling BFL products].

Can someone explain WTF does this mean?

BFL, guess what honey?..... this isnt your private forum.

My entire point is that the test doesn't actually prove that, you were aware of the reason why it doesn't prove that and published a test plan with precautions designed to prevent that specific method of cheating, and you came to the conclusion that it did anyway. That's kind of unfortunate. It wouldn't matter if you'd given people enough details to draw their own conclusionsin the first place - after all, it was just a preliminary test - but the information just wasn't available to us.

You can get down to a few hundred milliseconds round-trip time over 3G with a fair wind and a bit of luck, or tens of milliseconds over wireless. Depends partly on how much BFL controlled the environment that the tests were carried out in. I don't even bother polling my toy mining FPGA for results more than a few times a second; doesn't really matter that much. (Also, it's convenient in an FPGA design to keep the nonce counter rolling continuously and not bother to reset it for new work units, so any delay is likely to be lost in the noise across two trials.)

In a way that's quite odd - even though it's entirely possible to build hardware that does what they claim, they've been putting off the isolated testing time and time again and we still haven't seen evidence that it can mine at all. Admittedly it'd be rather expensive to build the hardware and require unusual technical knowledge, and scammers have been known to cut corners before, but still.

My understanding is that it is based on a modified Ufasoft core.

Off of the "is it a scam" topic...

I was looking around the website and the Drivers page appears to point all links back to itself.  Would it be possible to post some screenshots of the software so we can know/make suggestions on what features are supported?

I.e. ..

Does the front end software support fail-over pools?
What OS's are supported? just Windows 7?  what about XP?
Is there a realtime Mh/s readout?

I think the hardware requirements were already addressed as "if it can run a browser, thats good enough"

thanks,
Sigg

The "Ignore user" feature is the best thing added to this forum in a long time. It makes even threads like these worth reading, since many - many - posts filled with complete drivel are silenced.

Meaning $120 for a fully assembled/tested ~180MH/s 6s150 FPGA miner?  



-rph

I made no such conclusion.  I said the hardware does what it's designed to do - namely process SHA 256 hashes.

That said, I posted the test data which I provided from my pool.  The nonces were returned within the expected time frame.  The laptop could not have processed and produced the nonces on it's own (and therefore is not a candidate for cheating) and I find it highly unlikely that any remote connection could:

1) Setup a connection to process the data
2) Remote system process the data
3) Return / receive the processed nonces

All in the roughly exact same amount of time as it would take a box hashing 4.2 billion nones should take at a given hashrate.  I suppose they could have a giant GPU farm somewhere (Say a 4 GH/s farm as a conservative estimate) that is custom programmed to break up a single data block into multiple work units and farm all of those out to the multiple GPUs to hash, aggregate that data back (from a minimum of 5 separate GPUs) and return the results... but could they do it in under 6 seconds (and in some cases 4 seconds) over a wireless or cellular link?  You tell me, since your technical knowledge is superior to my own.

But for my money, I'm going to say it would have been far harder and far more costly to FAKE the results than it would have been to actually bring a piece of hardware that does what it's designed to do.  Not to mention, after sinking all that time and money into faking it, they are still going to have to hand over a unit to me for isolated testing at some point.

Additionally, this was not a reliable test by any stretch of the imagination.  It was a POC, as stated.  A reliable test has not been conducted as of yet, which has also been stated numerous times.

This might possibly be a reasonable response if the "but the computer could be connecting to mining hardware elsewhere" problem was just something I came up with after the test that you didn't think of beforehand. It wasn't. It was important enough that your original test plan went to great lengths to explain why this would be impossible - obviously you knew people wouldn't believe a test that didn't block this kind of outside communication. Yet somehow you concluded that their box could actually mine shares based on a proof of concept test that didn't exclude this potential cheating, and failed to mention the change so that people could judge for themselves how reliable the test was, instead leading us all to assume that the test proved more than it actually did.

That would be fine if there had actually been a test of the system.  All I've seen so far is a POC and as stated, what I've seen so far had lead me to the conclusion (hence the "I feel that the test we conducted showed a POC that adequately demonstartes that at least the hardware does what it's designed to do...") that this merits further investigations and is not an out and out fraud.

But seriously, come on down to KC here and you are welcome to sit in on the next test and conduct it in a manner you think is the right way.  You conspiracy nuts can go piss up a tree at this point. I'm tired of trying to cater to the nutbag leanings that have absolutely no basis in reality in terms of time frames, business practices, or technical development.

If someone has something to provide as far as something specific to test or some specific methodology, please speak up and I'll be glad to include it assuming it's feasible.  Otherwise, I really don't care. I'm evaluating this on behalf of the community and for my own edification and decision on whether or not to sink thousands of dollars into specialized bitcoin equipment or maintain my GPU farms.  If the community doesn't want my evaluation that's not really a detriment to me - I will still evaluate my options and what I see here and base my personal purchase decision accordingly. 

If the time comes and I recommend buying if it meets your needs and my credibility is not adequate, then by all means DO NOT BUY IT. I've never advocated preordering; I haven't preordered myself as of yet.  But should these devices prove to be everything they are shaping up to be so far that I have seen, I will likely be ordering at least a few to either supplement or replace some of my rigs.  Whether or not you choose to buy is, was and will be completely up to you.

The hostility is unnecessary.  If you have a purchase and are uncomfortable, simply ask for a refund.  If you don't and you're just a third party jerk, then with all due respect, mind your own business.  The heated passion is juvenile and irresponsible.  Get a grip.

Regards,
BFL

Personally I tend to think that the part just after that which you didn't bother to quote is kind of relevant too:
Because it doesn't adequately demonstrate that after all - it doesn't even prove that the BitForce boards can calculate a single hash - and the only way we found out about this huge and unexpected flaw in the only third-party test so far was by accident. Bear in mind that for every day that passes more pre-order customers hit the 45 day limit after which Paypal won't give refunds if BFL don't deliver.

you mean 1.5MH/$?

yeah, it's extremely possible in the next 6-8week. 

Depends how many people buy the boards for mining vs people that buy for mining and/or using them for other purposes. Some people will not pay 100$ more for other features. just $/MH and MH/w will be taken into consideration. I could be wrong though

But Icarus is open and has more ports and usefulness, so yeah...