ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 106.

Dexter770221

legendary

Activity: 1029

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Blazed on December 22, 2014, 09:24:24 AM

Quote from: Dexter770221 on December 22, 2014, 09:05:41 AM

S5 is a new product. Also in a string design... Who knows, maybe there will be similiar issues with poping packages and fires...

If so you better believe they will be working with us day 1 an issue happens. Also Bitmain has released a lot more gear than AM has...they are more experienced.

Lot more you say?
USB Block Erupter, Block Erupter, something mini (don't remember what was that), Tube, Prisma, Prisma 2.0 - six what I can remember. Maybe someone will add to this list.
Antminer: S1, S2, S3, S3+, S4, S5 - six...

EDIT: And propably those blades that was going to submerge cooling facilities where different than normal Block Erupters.

Blazed

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1119

Quote from: Dexter770221 on December 22, 2014, 09:05:41 AM

S5 is a new product. Also in a string design... Who knows, maybe there will be similiar issues with poping packages and fires...

If so you better believe they will be working with us day 1 an issue happens. Also Bitmain has released a lot more gear than AM has...they are more experienced.

Dexter770221

legendary

Activity: 1029

Merit: 1000

S5 is a new product. Also in a string design... Who knows, maybe there will be similiar issues with poping packages and fires...

Blazed

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1119

Quote from: Puppet on December 22, 2014, 08:40:58 AM

Quote from: 101111 on December 22, 2014, 08:36:58 AM

which are clearly a far superior product.

What makes you say that? S5 does 0.5J/GH at the wall, underclockable to ~0.2J. Prisma 2.0 is nowhere near.
I also think that not having a history of catching fire is a plus to many people.

lol yes this...I think many have lost a lot of faith in AM gear at this point..

Blazed

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1119

Quote from: 101111 on December 22, 2014, 08:36:58 AM

So Dogie is now employed by Bitmain and is quick to spruik them vs prismas https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9914111 which are clearly a far superior product. One of the few credible voices gone; at least he was open about it.

Superior? Really the Prisma 1.0 was an amazing experience I must say! Not sure what was my favorite part..the non working unit or lack of replies. I will have to get to you on that part while I think about it.

Puppet

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1040

Quote from: 101111 on December 22, 2014, 08:36:58 AM

which are clearly a far superior product.

What makes you say that? S5 does 0.5J/GH at the wall, underclockable to ~0.2J. Prisma 2.0 is nowhere near.
I also think that not having a history of catching fire is a plus to many people.

101111

hero member

Activity: 525

Merit: 500

So Dogie is now employed by Bitmain and is quick to spruik them vs prismas https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9914111 which are clearly a far superior product. One of the few credible voices gone; at least he was open about it.

Dexter770221

legendary

Activity: 1029

Merit: 1000

Competition:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/antminer-s5-1155ghoverclock-potential-in-stock-0319gh-051wgh-902305

And AM didn't even bother to announce Prisma 2.0
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/are-prisma-20s-being-sold-902269

jimmothy

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: malaimult on December 22, 2014, 02:10:35 AM

Right. I would be willing to bet that Canary is going to be removed from level 1 default trust in the near future if he keeps up his behavior. This whole fiasco makes me weary of potentially investing in AM hash and would even make me willing to bet that they will end up scamming in the future

Let me get this straight, you think AM is going to scam people in the future because of the actions of people who are not even part of the company?

And you think that lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam, yet you're willing to bet a company with transparency and proof of legitimacy is a scam?

Seems to me you don't have actual concerns, but more of a personal axe to grind.

malaimult

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: raskul on December 21, 2014, 12:06:44 PM

Quote from: malaimult on December 21, 2014, 12:02:43 PM

Quote from: Mabsark on December 21, 2014, 11:16:44 AM

Quote from: dmcdad on December 20, 2014, 10:55:31 PM

Quote from: malaimult on December 20, 2014, 10:47:25 PM

Well they seem to be bashing their competition via proxies that are all on default trust (and wearing their signature). IMO this is a serious cause for concern

Can you please give more detail on this (examples, links, etc.)? Thanks.

I think he's talking about a bunch of users (including Mr Teal, Puppet, Raskul and I) asking some cloud mining ponzis to provide evidence of legitimacy and me leaving negative feedback because they flat-out refused. I've told those "services" I'd remove it if they provide such evidence. Unsurprisingly, they haven't provided any evidence.

That is correct. My issue with that is that the lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam. The fact that you are advertising and invested in competing services is a major concern for me and makes it appear that you are attempting to increase the value of your investments.

i did learn a small lesson with this event. While I was so blinkered by the sheer volume of ponzis going on, I let it cloud my real judgement and Mabsark and I both did leave incorrect feedback on a recent new cloud mining operation. It turned out that particular operation is indeed legit and I, for one should have been more thoughtful in how I approached the subject.
I agree that lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam, and i'm being more cautious in my approach, in the future.

apologies for going OT but I felt the need to address this, as my name was mentioned.

I don't think that people should take risks with companies that may potentially end up scamming, but it is not fair to say that these companies will scam. Potential investors should proceed with caution with both AM hash and others

malaimult

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Blazed on December 21, 2014, 03:37:20 PM

Quote from: MichaelBliss on December 21, 2014, 02:53:13 PM

Quote from: Mabsark on December 21, 2014, 02:05:33 PM

Quote from: MichaelBliss on December 21, 2014, 01:27:36 PM

Dude, it's called "innocent until proven guilty". Your acting like an entitled asshole and it's reflecting badly on AM obviously.

As for calling out these ponzis reflecting badly on AM, that's complete nonsense and AMHash sales prove that.

Issue is with calling out / demanding evidence from legit companies, not the ponzis. I do see your point, I totally disagree that they should get negative trust until they prove themselves to you. Though I see the need for warning people. Haha start Mabsark's Ratings Guide to Ponzi's maybe...

I am sure these guys having default trust will not last long...Theymos already knows of the problems. Canary seems to hand out lvl 2 trust like it is going out of style and that should be fixed soon. I myself have some lvl 2 trust, but earned it..I would never negrate without proof since it carries a lot more weight. If you have no proof simple leave a neutral warning since it shows up and let others decide off of that.

Right. I would be willing to bet that Canary is going to be removed from level 1 default trust in the near future if he keeps up his behavior. This whole fiasco makes me weary of potentially investing in AM hash and would even make me willing to bet that they will end up scamming in the future

EternalWingsofGod

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: dogie on December 17, 2014, 10:15:36 AM

This company's rating has been updated in the Manufacturer Trustworthiness thread.

[This message won't be monitored, discuss any concerns in the thread.]

Reading the changelog in my opinion it makes sense on the communication front since we have been working on getting communications improved for the better part of the year without much progress by some measures so a downgrade made sense.
But it is more than 1 (since there is communication and 0 would be the absense of it 1 seems a tad low)
The prisma was an issue but the way it was handled was good so seems like a fair decrease for now.
It did make me look at all the competitors quite a few.

Quote from: John (John K.) on December 17, 2014, 11:08:36 AM

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9868520

The 6-chip board works.

Good stuff haven't checked in a while.

raskul

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: Mabsark on December 21, 2014, 04:37:41 PM

Quote from: Blazed on December 21, 2014, 03:37:20 PM

I am sure these guys having default trust will not last long...Theymos already knows of the problems. Canary seems to hand out lvl 2 trust like it is going out of style and that should be fixed soon. I myself have some lvl 2 trust, but earned it..I would never negrate without proof since it carries a lot more weight. If you have no proof simple leave a neutral warning since it shows up and let others decide off of that.

I've never been on Default Trust. I was on Canary's list (no idea why) but I'm not now. There's a discussion going on about it over here by the way, and most people agree with the feedback I've left.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Uh. What's up with divs ? One time payment and then silence again ?

That wasn't a proper dividend, ~~it was just for accountancy~~. That was the change from the next round of investment with your money.

FTFY^

Mabsark

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Blazed on December 21, 2014, 03:37:20 PM

I am sure these guys having default trust will not last long...Theymos already knows of the problems. Canary seems to hand out lvl 2 trust like it is going out of style and that should be fixed soon. I myself have some lvl 2 trust, but earned it..I would never negrate without proof since it carries a lot more weight. If you have no proof simple leave a neutral warning since it shows up and let others decide off of that.

I've never been on Default Trust. I was on Canary's list (no idea why) but I'm not now. There's a discussion going on about it over here by the way, and most people agree with the feedback I've left.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Uh. What's up with divs ? One time payment and then silence again ?

That wasn't a proper dividend, it was just for accountancy.

Blazed

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1119

Quote from: MichaelBliss on December 21, 2014, 02:53:13 PM

Quote from: Mabsark on December 21, 2014, 02:05:33 PM

Quote from: MichaelBliss on December 21, 2014, 01:27:36 PM

Dude, it's called "innocent until proven guilty". Your acting like an entitled asshole and it's reflecting badly on AM obviously.

As for calling out these ponzis reflecting badly on AM, that's complete nonsense and AMHash sales prove that.

Issue is with calling out / demanding evidence from legit companies, not the ponzis. I do see your point, I totally disagree that they should get negative trust until they prove themselves to you. Though I see the need for warning people. Haha start Mabsark's Ratings Guide to Ponzi's maybe...

I am sure these guys having default trust will not last long...Theymos already knows of the problems. Canary seems to hand out lvl 2 trust like it is going out of style and that should be fixed soon. I myself have some lvl 2 trust, but earned it..I would never negrate without proof since it carries a lot more weight. If you have no proof simple leave a neutral warning since it shows up and let others decide off of that.

MichaelBliss

hero member

Activity: 526

Merit: 500

Quote from: Mabsark on December 21, 2014, 02:05:33 PM

Quote from: MichaelBliss on December 21, 2014, 01:27:36 PM

Dude, it's called "innocent until proven guilty". Your acting like an entitled asshole and it's reflecting badly on AM obviously.

As for calling out these ponzis reflecting badly on AM, that's complete nonsense and AMHash sales prove that.

Issue is with calling out / demanding evidence from legit companies, not the ponzis. I do see your point, I totally disagree that they should get negative trust until they prove themselves to you. Though I see the need for warning people. Haha start Mabsark's Ratings Guide to Ponzi's maybe...

Mabsark

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1004

Quote from: MichaelBliss on December 21, 2014, 01:27:36 PM

Dude, it's called "innocent until proven guilty". Your acting like an entitled asshole and it's reflecting badly on AM obviously.

Tell that to all the victims of the PB mining ponzi and all the other bitcoin ponzis, I'm sure that will get them their money back. This isn't a court of law and there is no "innocent until proven guilty" when dealing with bitcoin services, they should all be treated as scams until they provide some evidence of legitimacy.

As for calling out these ponzis reflecting badly on AM, that's complete nonsense and AMHash sales prove that.

MichaelBliss

hero member

Activity: 526

Merit: 500

Quote from: xhomerx10 on December 21, 2014, 01:32:34 PM

how many others would willingly take this task without the promise of remuneration?

Yeah, I said I don't blame Dogie for doing his service, it's a free market and anyone is welcome to do the same thing and compete. That's very charitable of him if he gets nothing in return. I thought maybe he was getting free hardware for testing.

xhomerx10

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 7912

Quote from: MichaelBliss on December 21, 2014, 11:54:44 AM

Quote from: raskul on December 21, 2014, 04:12:09 AM

Quote from: dogie on December 21, 2014, 04:03:29 AM

Quote from: ensurance982 on December 20, 2014, 08:00:29 PM

Quote from: dogie on December 17, 2014, 10:15:36 AM

This company's rating has been updated in the Manufacturer Trustworthiness thread.

[This message won't be monitored, discuss any concerns in the thread.]

I gotta say this is a tad uncalled for... FC has communicated more than ever (well except for the funding and early gen 1 period) over the last weeks or so. The 1/10 points at communication deserve at least something better Cheesy

Have a look through any of the product threads. Its been the same thing repeated for months and months, bad communication, customer support, technical support and impossible to get hold of anyone. It goes on for pages and pages and pages and pages across all the threads.

I think what dogie is confusing here is the difference between a product manufacturer and an interent formus user.
When you purchase an item from a manufacturer, they do not have a duty to be on hand 24/7 on a related, but separate from their own sales platform forum.
I do think dogie has been slightly harsh and I can actually see a h/w race which is pretty much neck-and-neck-and-neck-and-neck at the moment.

The real problem is that one user "Doggie" has so much power and influence over "ratings" - since he is the only one rating these companies it seems. You can't really blame him for providing a service. Since he's the only one, he becomes a bit of a dictator in a community that respects "decentralization", not tyranny. The obvious solution would be for other Doggies to emerge and do their own ratings. A better solution would be to set something up where the rating is a transparent forumula that takes as it's input ratings of various users. Doggie's thread, and the way he can play God and make or break a company, always seemed ridiculously authoritarian and incompatible with bitcoin principals of democracy and plurality, etc.
I mean, even if Doggie is a saint today; what's to stop him from selling his account to Spoondoolies or someone? Centralization is not good. Neither is authoritarianism. Distrust anyone who decides to become an "authority". Sorry Doggie, you seem like an all right guy, but I can't support what your doing.

You make a valid argument though I wonder how many others would willingly take this task without the promise of remuneration?

MichaelBliss

hero member

Activity: 526

Merit: 500

Quote from: Mabsark on December 21, 2014, 01:02:15 PM

Quote from: malaimult on December 21, 2014, 12:02:43 PM

That is correct. My issue with that is that the lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam. The fact that you are advertising and invested in competing services is a major concern for me and makes it appear that you are attempting to increase the value of your investments.

And my problem with that, is that waiting for evidence of a scam to leave negative feedback is simply too late for that feedback to stop people being ripped off by those scams. If those "services" don't want to be labelled as ponzis, they should stop acting like ponzis and provide some evidence to potential customers that they are in fact legitimate instead of coming up with bullshit excuses why they can't provide such evidence. Far too many people are getting ripped off by such ponzis and it's up to us as a community to stop that.

I think all new cloud mining services should start out with a ponzi warning until they provide evidence of their legitimacy.

Quote from: raskul on December 21, 2014, 12:06:44 PM

i did learn a small lesson with this event. While I was so blinkered by the sheer volume of ponzis going on, I let it cloud my real judgement and Mabsark and I both did leave incorrect feedback on a recent new cloud mining operation.

Which I removed immediately upon some form of evidence of legitimacy being provided, just like I said I would.

Dude, it's called "innocent until proven guilty". Your acting like an entitled asshole and it's reflecting badly on AM obviously.

Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 106. (Read 3917058 times)