Topic: [Archive] BFL trolling museum - page 27. (Read 69394 times)

You by yourself violated rule 2 "not to be greedy"

The Manual:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/purchasing-bitcoin-asics-the-manual-136615

I agree to this, but only if you leave if they don't ship.

That makes no sense. Those photos were released in October and the worst-case scenario testing supposedly wasn't until December.

I think that the best bet that can make all BFL haters, is that if BFL finally is not a scam and ship, leave this forum forever. I think the community will benefit considerably.

So unpleasant people only might be tolerable if they are right.

Not if they burn other peoples money!

It's quite embarrassing for a company when they think they're ready to ship, but then realise that they have INSERT_MAJOR_ISSUE and INSERT_MINOR_ISSUE and have to delay. Companies don't like to show off their failures, so they would (understandably) want to be light on details. If they have active competitors, they want to be very light on details so that their competitors can't learn from their mistakes. Therefore, any announcement you see will rarely be the full story; perhaps just INSERT_MINOR_ISSUE.

Apparent inconsistencies between announcements are likely in this situation.

They don't have empty boxes with fans like you have, right? 




No ASIC "vendor" has proven to have working devices yet.

The only devices you have are those in your wet dreams.

There is your keyword. Keep hanging in there. The marathon of waiting BFL evangelists on their pre-orders.

Good to see news of progress from BFL and hopefully a deliverable product some time in February. 

Holy shit PuertoLibre, you've somehow, incredibly, managed to out do yourself this time.  You'e managed to pack more fail into two paragraphs than I thought was even possible.  I'll let someone else explain why everything you said here is so completely idiotic that it may be impossible to know where to even begin correcting you (I would vote for 8.9 months before you were born and it involves a coat hanger and a bottle of JD).

Ask yourself this question. If they received a small batch, wouldn't they put a single chip on a PCB? How would a single chip overheat? Why wouldn't they demo such a working ASIC? Something just doesn't add up.

Nancy drew, eh?

Well, if anyone has the time they can go and read Josh's answers to his Q&A and then go back into the forums past and reread/reskim all those positions BFL took as you travel back in time to October (2012). Then you can truly decide if there is a bit of revisionist history going on. (and to what extent with Hindsight)

Beyond that, you might even find contradictory statements.

First they (BFL) stated they were perfectly ready to ship (or so they thought) in October 2012. Yet the latest answers from Josh paint a very strange and surreal picture.  Admitting that they only received a small number of chips in October 2012 and finding problems. You should find it pretty strange that this would contradict their prior position that they had somehow been ready to start mass production with their chips.

Think about that.

As an example, I tell you I am ready to ship and fulfill all pre-orders in October 2012. Then in Mid-January I retell the same tale and say that we only received a small number of chips in October and found a problem. How do you explain that discrepancy? Weren't they supposed to be shipping in mass in October? Why didn't Josh say they received a large number of chips in October to fulfill their massive pre-orders? Is this a typo or a mistake?

Did you all know (by now) how long it takes to bake chips at the Fab? Do you all know that BFL has stated that they were using a technique which involved holding the chips half baked to test the quality of their design...and once sure...complete the other wafers or make adjustments. You do realize (I hope) that BFl was using a dense chip with many more layers (than their competitors) and that each layer takes about a day to deposit in the manufacturing process. (30+ Layers)

So ask yourself this question: If they only received a small batch of "test chips" that turned out to be overheating, then why did they make it seem like they were ready to fulfill pre-orders in October? Why make that promise if all you were expecting in the mail was a tiny batch to do tests on?

Hmm, I think someone needs to be careful about what accidentally slips out....Oops

I remember BitcoinNV throwing BFL into the mix as a side-note when he was on the pirateat40 case.  I thought I was the only person who considered this action to be awesome.  I must have already been pretty suspicious by that time.

I guess maybe this is where it came out that BFL had taken over some defunct companies papers and the best conjecture seemed to be that perhaps it was in order to save like $100 on filing expenses?!?  I mean a company who is supposed to be developing ASICs and they were this tight on funds?  That didn't pass the smell test to me.  One of many things which make one go Hmmm.

Once again, it's not the ASIC chips themselves that have the problem... it's the surrounding components.  The maximum temperature we saw (in simulations) in the QFN package was 95C with a max of 121C.  However, the MCU and a few other components had a ~100C maximum temp.  With 8 of these units, the heat simply builds up under the QFN plastic and sheds into the ground plane, transferring all that heat throughout the entire 92mmx92mm board.  So at least 20w or 30w of heat is being dissipated on a 92mm board that has very poor thermal dissipation properties.  


Possibly... but I think it's more likely that we'd be right back here in several months with people calling us all sorts of names for forcing an upgrade cycle on them again and calling us greedy assholes for forcing people to upgrade so we can grab more cash.  Instead, we chose to provide a product that will be viable for a long time, far longer than any other product.  You'll still be mining with our first gen product well into the third or fourth gen Avalon, if they ever make it that far.

By "the details" do you mean the state of the bubbled chips from earlier?  I wasn't suggesting ship those chips, I was suggesting a less ambitious and risky strategy from the beginning - small batch sizes, tried and true larger nm processes, etc.

Who uses 8 of these chips on the same 3.5" x 3.5" PCB?

Without knowing all the details, it's tough to make a certain determination, as such a move might have caused BFL undue expense.  But you could be right...!

Well I'm glad your on the case nancy drew......

Uh...you guys have some short term memory!

Uh, if I recall correctly, Josh denied the chips were blown.

People thought the chips had been photoshopped at that time. Some thought (oddly) that the chips were actually black tape. Others speculated it was photoshopped to hide the chip writing. etc.

Josh (if I recall correctly) denied they were blown and then called people . Which then led to him and other BFL reps releasing extra images of the PCB with different chip configurations.

Ultimately, Josh admitted (strangely enough at the time) that they didn't have any prototypes that actually worked as intended. I believe this was caused by BitcoinINV in his pursuit of BFL through an Attorney General.

(This was the guy everyone hated who posted up two different images with blue paper. The first one was a complaint and the next was a response from BFL to the Attorney General showing their business address, a short summary of their current development status and the BFL address along with Jody's real name and title.)