I'll just put this here:
https://www.btcfpga.com/forum/index.php?topic=125.0
bASICally it's a mid-Jan launch... so far
ISWYDThttps://www.btcfpga.com/forum/index.php?topic=125.0
bASICally it's a mid-Jan launch... so far
Topic: Already delays in BFL shipment plans? - page 13. (Read 49567 times)
I'll just put this here:
https://www.btcfpga.com/forum/index.php?topic=125.0
bASICally it's a mid-Jan launch... so far
https://www.btcfpga.com/forum/index.php?topic=125.0
bASICally it's a mid-Jan launch... so far
Until ASICs start shipping in volume, that batch of chips is like a pile of plutonium, just waiting for someone to make off with them and start hashing with them.
With 20k of those chips, even if they only perform at half their advertised speed, one could easily control > 50% of the network hashing power.
What about if they perform at 50MHz ?
Orders canceled. Not dealing with this shit (BFL) anymore.
Well, at least you stood your ground and gave them every opportunity to come through....Looks like the first (safe) wave of refunds have begun or are ongoing.
The second wave of refunds is where the risk is at (IMO).
Seems the risk is already here: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/pre-sales-questions/441-refund-not-getting-processed.html
If Nasser is telling the truth, wouldn't it mean that either a) the chips haven't even been produced yet or b) the bullet run for the chips happened but they're going to scrap all the chips from that run and another bullet run (which will happen fuck knows when) will be needed to produce the chips with the new design?
Until ASICs start shipping in volume, that batch of chips is like a pile of plutonium, just waiting for someone to make off with them and start hashing with them.
With 20k of those chips, even if they only perform at half their advertised speed, one could easily control > 50% of the network hashing power.
Let's beat the rush and start panicking now.
They've said they have no working prototypes. Underperforming seems a tough pill to swallow, at the least they could be making a buttload of Little Singles using 8 chips but clocked low enough to get 30GH/s out of 8 chips. Even if power consumption was higher at 50W @ 30GH/s, they could easily showcase those.
This. Josh has repeatedly said that they have no chips to test and no working prototypes. Even under-performing chips could have been used to demonstrate that they have something.
BFL's legitimacy is dead simple to assert: they managed to be greatly successful and profitable inventing, making, and selling thousands of FPGA Singles. I have many of them in my very own hands.
And if you have a profitable business, the natural human reaction, even for greedy people (the type who may want to defraud), is to simply expand the business, not to do something riskier by defrauding your customers.
So their next product will also under perform in Gh/s and consume more power in kWh, just like in the case of their first product, as they announced it? But now on a larger scale... ;-) And if you have a profitable business, the natural human reaction, even for greedy people (the type who may want to defraud), is to simply expand the business, not to do something riskier by defrauding your customers.
If Nasser is telling the truth, wouldn't it mean that either a) the chips haven't even been produced yet or b) the bullet run for the chips happened but they're going to scrap all the chips from that run and another bullet run (which will happen fuck knows when) will be needed to produce the chips with the new design?
According to Josh back on the 3rd, they had issues caused by refraction and that's why the chips were delayed with estimated delivery on the 23rd. I can't imagine how they wouldn't know that redesigning the clock buffers would cause a delay back when Josh posted this if it wasn't a new issue.
Quote from: BFL_Josh
As for why the delay, if the November issue of Bitcoin Magazine would come out it would make a lot more sense. Bottom line is, our chips are the most advanced chips by a wide, wide, margin compared to any other offering. Because of that, the design has taken longer than expected. Our process node also blows away any of the toy offerings from the other vendors and we had to deal with some unexpected refraction issues that needed to be addressed.
So, since we are left with differing statements from BFL I'll read between the lines.
The first run/prototypes underperformed. Makes sense if the official word is that "there was no flaw," but there was a revision.
They've said they have no working prototypes. Underperforming seems a tough pill to swallow, at the least they could be making a buttload of Little Singles using 8 chips but clocked low enough to get 30GH/s out of 8 chips. Even if power consumption was higher at 50W @ 30GH/s, they could easily showcase those.
Good point in regards to showcasing prototypes.
But at this point I'm not sure that BFL is acting completely rationally.
If Nasser is telling the truth, wouldn't it mean that either a) the chips haven't even been produced yet or b) the bullet run for the chips happened but they're going to scrap all the chips from that run and another bullet run (which will happen fuck knows when) will be needed to produce the chips with the new design?
According to Josh back on the 3rd, they had issues caused by refraction and that's why the chips were delayed with estimated delivery on the 23rd. I can't imagine how they wouldn't know that redesigning the clock buffers would cause a delay back when Josh posted this if it wasn't a new issue.
Quote from: BFL_Josh
As for why the delay, if the November issue of Bitcoin Magazine would come out it would make a lot more sense. Bottom line is, our chips are the most advanced chips by a wide, wide, margin compared to any other offering. Because of that, the design has taken longer than expected. Our process node also blows away any of the toy offerings from the other vendors and we had to deal with some unexpected refraction issues that needed to be addressed.
So, since we are left with differing statements from BFL I'll read between the lines.
The first run/prototypes underperformed. Makes sense if the official word is that "there was no flaw," but there was a revision.
They've said they have no working prototypes. Underperforming seems a tough pill to swallow, at the least they could be making a buttload of Little Singles using 8 chips but clocked low enough to get 30GH/s out of 8 chips. Even if power consumption was higher at 50W @ 30GH/s, they could easily showcase those.
If Nasser is telling the truth, wouldn't it mean that either a) the chips haven't even been produced yet or b) the bullet run for the chips happened but they're going to scrap all the chips from that run and another bullet run (which will happen fuck knows when) will be needed to produce the chips with the new design?
According to Josh back on the 3rd, they had issues caused by refraction and that's why the chips were delayed with estimated delivery on the 23rd. I can't imagine how they wouldn't know that redesigning the clock buffers would cause a delay back when Josh posted this if it wasn't a new issue.
Quote from: BFL_Josh
As for why the delay, if the November issue of Bitcoin Magazine would come out it would make a lot more sense. Bottom line is, our chips are the most advanced chips by a wide, wide, margin compared to any other offering. Because of that, the design has taken longer than expected. Our process node also blows away any of the toy offerings from the other vendors and we had to deal with some unexpected refraction issues that needed to be addressed.
So, since we are left with differing statements from BFL I'll read between the lines.
The first few runs/prototypes underperformed. Makes sense if the official word is that "there was no flaw," but there was a revision.
i bet it was more than one.
If Nasser is telling the truth, wouldn't it mean that either a) the chips haven't even been produced yet or b) the bullet run for the chips happened but they're going to scrap all the chips from that run and another bullet run (which will happen fuck knows when) will be needed to produce the chips with the new design?
According to Josh back on the 3rd, they had issues caused by refraction and that's why the chips were delayed with estimated delivery on the 23rd. I can't imagine how they wouldn't know that redesigning the clock buffers would cause a delay back when Josh posted this if it wasn't a new issue.
Quote from: BFL_Josh
As for why the delay, if the November issue of Bitcoin Magazine would come out it would make a lot more sense. Bottom line is, our chips are the most advanced chips by a wide, wide, margin compared to any other offering. Because of that, the design has taken longer than expected. Our process node also blows away any of the toy offerings from the other vendors and we had to deal with some unexpected refraction issues that needed to be addressed.
So, since we are left with differing statements from BFL I'll read between the lines.
The first run/prototypes underperformed. Makes sense if the official word is that "there was no flaw," but there was a revision.
Orders canceled. Not dealing with this shit (BFL) anymore.
How many orders did you have? By my count, you've cancelled one every other week for the last 2 months.
I had a few. And I've only said once that I have canceled. I left this last order open believing they would come through. Hence the term 'orders' cancled in a way of saying that all ties are closed. Sorry for any confusion
If Nasser is telling the truth, wouldn't it mean that either a) the chips haven't even been produced yet or b) the bullet run for the chips happened but they're going to scrap all the chips from that run and another bullet run (which will happen fuck knows when) will be needed to produce the chips with the new design?
According to Josh back on the 3rd, they had issues caused by refraction and that's why the chips were delayed with estimated delivery on the 23rd. I can't imagine how they wouldn't know that redesigning the clock buffers would cause a delay back when Josh posted this if it wasn't a new issue.
Quote from: BFL_Josh
As for why the delay, if the November issue of Bitcoin Magazine would come out it would make a lot more sense. Bottom line is, our chips are the most advanced chips by a wide, wide, margin compared to any other offering. Because of that, the design has taken longer than expected. Our process node also blows away any of the toy offerings from the other vendors and we had to deal with some unexpected refraction issues that needed to be addressed.
If Nasser is telling the truth, wouldn't it mean that either a) the chips haven't even been produced yet or b) the bullet run for the chips happened but they're going to scrap all the chips from that run and another bullet run (which will happen fuck knows when) will be needed to produce the chips with the new design?
Yeah, good luck with that. Take a look in the lending forum. There's even now people in there begging for others to lend them coins to buy ASICs with.
We have people who borrowed in order to place pre-orders whose loans are now falling due.
Well that was dumb.We probably also have people who were counting on income from their ASICs...
And that's just plain stupid.Unless you know what you're getting into, borrowing money to fund a highly risky endeavor is foolhardy.
It ought to be obvious, but I'll go go ahead and restate the first rule of investing anyway for everyone here:
"Never risk what you cannot afford to lose."
We have people who borrowed in order to place pre-orders whose loans are now falling due.
Well that was dumb.We probably also have people who were counting on income from their ASICs...
And that's just plain stupid.Unless you know what you're getting into, borrowing money to fund a highly risky endeavor is foolhardy.
If they were going to take everyone's money and run, it would have been done a long time ago. They are very likely losing money by having to give out refunds vs the number of new orders they might be taking in.
hardware manufacturers always win, forcing you to buy a new firmware, new improvements, new product generation.
BFL double wins, can earn by selling hardware and using it for mining. With your money making machine to make money. And for the year, they will force you to bought the second generation. This is a good business
All this is hypothetical because there is no guarantee that they will succeed.You can buy GPU in any store, ASIC not. If someone takes someone able to use the GPU, forcing him to buy ASIC. Of course you can completely opt out of mining
If they were going to take everyone's money and run, it would have been done a long time ago. They are very likely losing money by having to give out refunds vs the number of new orders they might be taking in.
hardware manufacturers always win, forcing you to buy a new firmware, new improvements, new product generation.
BFL double wins, can earn by selling hardware and using it for mining. With your money making machine to make money. And for the year, they will force you to bought the second generation. This is a good business
All this is hypothetical because there is no guarantee that they will succeed.Bankruptcy isn't the "ha-ha" you might think it is. I'm no lawyer, but AFAIK since BFL is an incorporated entity, bankruptcy would fall only on the business. Any salaries to employees/owners, big bonuses for CEO/CTO/CFO/etc. to the tune of whatever they want, and other "operating expenses" reducing their operating capital would be untouched, and by filing Chapter 7, they are not required to repay the full debt owed (meaning everyone gets screwed to a greater or lesser extent). Additionally if they really have VC funding as they said they did, usually a company draws up contracts specifically stating that those folks get "first dibs" on asset liquidation, further reducing what customers would receive.
I'm just sayin'
Orders canceled. Not dealing with this shit (BFL) anymore.
Well, at least you stood your ground and gave them every opportunity to come through....Looks like the first (safe) wave of refunds have begun or are ongoing.
The second wave of refunds is where the risk is at (IMO).
We have people who borrowed in order to place pre-orders whose loans are now falling due. We probably also have people who were counting on income from their ASICs for Christmas and who now realise that even if they get their ASICs on 11 December, they aren't going to earn enough in two weeks to pay for Christmas. So yeah, I think we're going to see a round of cancellations for financial reasons in addition to those cancellations from people who are just tired over the delays.
Jump to: