Topic: [Announcement] Butterfly Labs - page 23. (Read 64445 times)

Ok, lets deconstruct this a minute.  BFL has stated that our chip is a custom ASIC, end of story.  That's what it is.  bASIC is a Cell Based ASIC, which is another name for a sASIC for all intents and purposes.  So we have a parity there; we've both stated what our chip is.

Performance figures based on a prototype no one has seen and Thom has refused to give evidence of.  Now, I'm not saying he's lying, because I believe he probably does have some fashion of a prototype, but we're talking about comparing apples to apples here.  I could just as easily tell you the same thing and you'd ask me to prove it, so instead of going down that path, I am not going into detail with regards to that because I do not want to be in the same situation Thom is currently in. (or is it Tom?  Sorry, I have seen it both ways, so my apologies if I have it wrong).  I'm sure he's regretting making that statement now.

The ModMiner Quad was delivered almost a half year later than BFL and had the benefit of the trail BFL and others had already forged to work with.  It's easy to be on time and under budget when you don't have to create a device from scratch that few or no one has created before. Couple that with the fact that it was and still is the best performing, least expensive FPGA device and I think there needs to be some leeway there.

Who ordered a single that got an email that said 9 - 10 weeks?  We just shipped orders from early August today, we are under 4 weeks at this point.  But regardless, the ASIC generation is going to be quite a bit different in terms of construction and parts, so it can't even be compared.  

As far as the statement goes, I don't see how an opinion such as that needs to be qualified with anything more than has already been said to be considered reasonable.  I honestly believe he will be happy with the device(s) outright, but especially when compared to the competition.

bASIC has specifically stated that it is Cell Based ASIC and even gone to the details of saying how they have produced the first chips.

bASIC has specifically stated that they have the chips already and is testing them in a prototype.

BFL's record on this has been to state that it is "Custom ASIC" back when they first released details and quoted figures for MH/s and USB power usage ... but given the BFL history of quoting devices existing when they were simply simulations, that statement has a high level of uncertainly - and seriously no details at all.
bASIC has stated that their performance figures are based on their existing prototype but BFL figures were given back in ...

bASIC has give a delivery date, as has BFL.

The ModMiner Quad was delivered to specs and close to timeframes, that BFL has never done and still states that you will get a BFL Single in 4-6 week which is still known even by yourself to be false.
I know someone who ordered one recently and then received an email stating 9-10 weeks ...

If we were to apply your clearly advertised history to the new ASIC production ...  you need to give better details than what you have - to consider your statement
reasonable.

Well, as far as prototypes go, do you have any silicon back yet that's testable on your end? Even a rough mock-up just for testing the wafer layout. Let us know what the specs on that are and if/how they're expected to change for production items.

If it's the difference between October and November ship dates, can I just request sooner rather than later?

Also, as long as pre-orders have been open, it'd be nice to see BFL shipping before competitors 

Ok... so again, what information has he given out that we haven't?

Sorry, but a claim to a prototype and an explanation on how he came to have a prototype does not constitute additional information and definitely not WAY more information.

With regards to point 2, though, I had thought that it would be self evident in the announcement.  We have developed our own IP, it's not licensed from anyone and we have not hired our any of our work, it's all 100% original and not subject to potential lawsuits or potential licensing issues. 

1) He claims to have a working prototype.  (Thus far unverified - but BFL has not even claimed this yet.)
2) He has explained the rough details as to how he came to have a prototype: Licensed RTL from overseas; hired design experts; fabbed chips at a shared wafer facility; etc.  BFL has stated none of this.

BFL has been a black hole of information other than price and estimated shipping date.  Please prove me wrong.

What information has he given out that we haven't?  I'm honestly asking, not being sarcastic.

There isn't enough information (from any competitor) to even DO a valid comparison.

Actually - that statement is quite meaningless.
Do a VALID comparison and give reasons.
There is no comparison at the moment - and even bASIC has given out WAY more information than BFL regarding their product.

I can't imagine you not being happy with the product when compared to any of the competition.

I purchased my BFL SC with bitcoin at a price of ~6$, ~4 months ago (knowing full well the price would rise) . Please do your best to make this extra cost worth it.

Having bASIC with an ETA of early November worries me too.

With regards to sockets, the current generation will not have sockets.  It's wickedly expensive and error prone to put a socket on a board. That said, if something were to cause the units to be unsuitable for mining, we would not forget out customers and just say "Oh too bad, all your gear is worthless."  We would do everything we could to get people back into mining shape with the least amount of hassle and cost, just like we are doing with the transition from FPGA to ASIC.  We don't want to leave any of our current or future customers behind.


I would love to give you a hard time frame, but I don't want to be caught in a situation where people quote back and say "You said you'd do BBB on YYY date" when there are many issues that might make that date change that are out of my control.  But I have already been in the planning stages of showing something off fairly soon, but no I'm not committing to a specific date as of yet.  But no, we won't be shipping on the 1st of October - it's late October or early November depending on stock levels come late October.

Things are looking really good though, we just shipped off a metric bucketload of FPGA singles today and we are almost caught up on that front, so our production facility is getting into nice shape and we will be able to crank out lots of ASIC units as well, so things are looking good and are on track right now.

They've already quoted a late October/early November ship date. I can' guarantee you they will not be shipping on Oct 1st  .

BFL- Can you give us some idea of when we are likely to see an update?  It is less than 4 weeks until October, when you have previosuly stated that you would be shipping the first ASIC units.  Are you looking at early, mid or late Oct?  Are you still on track?  Some idea would be nice at this stage.

Its a pre-order for November/December shipping dates.

1 Year warranty.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1157524

This looks promising. Is it available now? and how long does it take to ship? Warranty?

Look no further: http://www.btcfpga.com/index.php?route=product/product&manufacturer_id=11&product_id=58

If it will be as modular as their previous option then BFL may need to rethink its strategy and not rely on monopoly.

It'd be a terrible idea for BFL.  They have plenty of orders WITHOUT adding extra complications, why would they need to or choose to do something like this?  They have an effective monopoly on the market.

Once there's some actual competition in the market, one of the vendors might give something like this a try to get a competitive edge against the others in the market.

IMHO I doubt that BFL would make their devices with socketted chips. There aren't really cheap sockets for the types of packages that they're probably considering (maybe QFN or QFP), especially for high frequency applications. If they wanted to do this their best bet would probably be going with a BGA and trying to source a press in socket similar to most modern CPUs. But, I don't believe BGA is a very popular package for the type of ASIC they will be creating.