Topic: BFL ASIC is bogus - page 7. (Read 22405 times)
Would you be willing to escrow a bet amount at 500:1 odds? If so, how much are you willing to risk?
If you require 500:1 odds to bet, this means you think 350 Mhash/J may be doable.
Therefore you are not the person I want to bet against. I want to bet against those who claim 350 Mhash/J is plainly impossible
Therefore you are not the person I want to bet against. I want to bet against those who claim 350 Mhash/J is plainly impossible
My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.
They do now.
By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.
If you know how the process of semiconductor manufacturing actually works the notation of a BFL custom ASIC is ridiculous.
To get an idea what kind of people pulled this thing off in the past... (Ninja Style ASIC development using selfwritten software), he did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Moore
If you truly think that BFL cannot achieve, oh, say, 350 Mhash/Joule, then you can easily make 50 BTC by betting as little as 0.1 BTC (since people have yet to bet against my entry on betsofbitco.in). See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/50-btc-bet-that-bfl-asic-will-do-350-mhashswatt-or-more-ie-mhashjoule-109357
My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.
They do now.
By custom chips I mean Full Custom ASICs, that is what they are claiming they are making. That costs about 10M USD for starters.
There might be some way to get it cheaper if you have the ties but unless whoever behind BFL is some engineering wizard he doesn't even have the means to develop it.
If you know how the process of semiconductor manufacturing actually works the notation of a BFL custom ASIC is ridiculous.
To get an idea what kind of people pulled this thing off in the past... (Ninja Style ASIC development using selfwritten software), he did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Moore
If you truly think that BFL cannot achieve, oh, say, 350 Mhash/Joule, then you can easily make 50 BTC by betting as little as 0.1 BTC (since people have yet to bet against my entry on betsofbitco.in). See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/50-btc-bet-that-bfl-asic-will-do-350-mhashswatt-or-more-ie-mhashjoule-109357
Don't you guys remember that the Singles were claimed to contain custom hardware?
It will either turn out to be an exaggerated claim or even a scam.
inb4 BFL fanboy shitstorm.
anyway just posting that so I can bump it next year with "I told you so."
My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.
It will either turn out to be an exaggerated claim or even a scam.
inb4 BFL fanboy shitstorm.
anyway just posting that so I can bump it next year with "I told you so."
My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.
well i certainly hope its an exaggerated claim/scam i just purchased 1500 BTC worth of mining hardware (hoping its not true) if it is indeed true im going to say bye bye to all my profits
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79637.300#msg1157524
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108375.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91173.0;all
Don't you guys remember that the Singles were claimed to contain custom hardware?
It will either turn out to be an exaggerated claim or even a scam.
inb4 BFL fanboy shitstorm.
anyway just posting that so I can bump it next year with "I told you so."
My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.
It will either turn out to be an exaggerated claim or even a scam.
inb4 BFL fanboy shitstorm.
anyway just posting that so I can bump it next year with "I told you so."
My point being: BFL the way it is presented to us certainly hasn't got the resources and funds to develop custom chips.
well i certainly hope its an exaggerated claim/scam i just purchased 1500 BTC worth of mining hardware (hoping its not true) if it is indeed true im going to say bye bye to all my profits
just looking at the network hashrate... something goofy is going on,. how do we go from 15000 to 22,000 within 24 hour period ? I have never seen such large swings until lately.
goofy?
hashrate follows exchange rate (with a noisy lag of 1-4 weeks), cost for running mining equipment has been falling => everything normal. I'm not saying BFL is not "testing their new product", though. That also would not be goofy.
just looking at the network hashrate... something goofy is going on,. how do we go from 15000 to 22,000 within 24 hour period ? I have never seen such large swings until lately.
I thought the "network speed" was based off the rate at which blocks were being found, and estimating it from there. If everyone happened to have a 24 hour streak of bad luck, then the graph would dip. If everyone had really good luck tho, then the graph would swing up. Thats why I like the 3day average.
The only way what you saying could happen (i think) Is that if a Solominer Nailed >50% of the blocks one day, And then hit close to none the next..
just looking at the network hashrate... something goofy is going on,. how do we go from 15000 to 22,000 within 24 hour period ? I have never seen such large swings until lately.
I thought the "network speed" was based off the rate at which blocks were being found, and estimating it from there. If everyone happened to have a 24 hour streak of bad luck, then the graph would dip. If everyone had really good luck tho, then the graph would swing up. Thats why I like the 3day average.
You'll see.
The difference between Hardcopy and real asics has been explained several times, just look it up.
One last time: Hardcopy is the same device as an FPGA except there is a metal layer instead of the routing, so there is marginally lower power consumption and marginally higher speed. Its a little better than the difference between different speed grades of the same fpga. Several people many of them professionals in the field have said this if you don't believe me.
btw: nicely done for finding this thread after 13 posts
The difference between Hardcopy and real asics has been explained several times, just look it up.
One last time: Hardcopy is the same device as an FPGA except there is a metal layer instead of the routing, so there is marginally lower power consumption and marginally higher speed. Its a little better than the difference between different speed grades of the same fpga. Several people many of them professionals in the field have said this if you don't believe me.
btw: nicely done for finding this thread after 13 posts
Quote
Right, and what if that is just a little off lets say by about 40%?
What if next-gen fpgas happen to beat them?
What if next-gen fpgas happen to beat them?
custom or hard copy.. your trying hard to break down the difference between say a turbo and a supercharger..
but come on 40% off., when you have nothing to base this on is really going on speculation.
we can sit here all day and say it might be 50% off the target but right now everyone here
is waiting on 40 Ghash's.. i don't care if its full custom .. hard copy or donuts with a USB cables sticking out of them
40 ghash it is until you come with actual evidence we can go at this till the earth freeze's over.
^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
Who cares as long as it lives up to the hashrate specs.
Right, and what if that is just a little off lets say by about 40%?
What if next-gen fpgas happen to beat them?
Whether they will get claimed performance or not is basically a question of whether they have ~30 million USD for R&D and 9-12 month time or not.
Psst, everybody knows BFL has a magical contract with Chinese elves.
^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
Who cares as long as it lives up to the hashrate specs.
^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
Sorry, there's dozens of BFL ASIC threads and I'm not looking through them all to find the quote.
The basic gist was, it was revealed (I believe on the BFL website, but I could be wrong on that) that there would be a barrel jack on the Jalapeno. People obviously got excited about that and the implications it held for efficiency numbers and the fact that BFL had previously stated the Jalapeno was USB powered. BFL then came in and clarified that the actual device was USB powered and the plug was just to provide extra power for the warmer.
^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
Sorry, there's dozens of BFL ASIC threads and I'm not looking through them all to find the quote.
The basic gist was, it was revealed (I believe on the BFL website, but I could be wrong on that) that there would be a barrel jack on the Jalapeno. People obviously got excited about that and the implications it held for efficiency numbers and the fact that BFL had previously stated the Jalapeno was USB powered. BFL then came in and clarified that the actual device was USB powered and the plug was just to provide extra power for the warmer.
Whether they will get claimed performance or not is basically a question of whether they have ~30 million USD for R&D and 9-12 month time or not.
^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
Who cares as long as it lives up to the hashrate specs.
^ I don't understand this. Is the hashing ASIC chip not producing the heat? Please do find the quote if you can.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
It seems obvious (from reading this thread at least) that BFL can't achieve 3.5 GH/s at > 5 W. My prediction is that they will release something, perhaps a month or two later than October, but that it will not live up to the power specifications.
They replied in their thread somewhere that the actual hashing engine would be USB power, with the external power supply being only used for the coffee warmer.
They promise 3.5GH per 5W (usb powered) they won't even reach that with the latest nanometer node, so the debate is irrelevant.
I was refering to full custom asics as "real" asics to which standart cell asics belong since they use the same manufactureing technique except they use tech libraries instead of construcing their own gates and sub-circuits. On the physical layer it is the same thing. FPGA conversion asics however are not, and that's the only "asic" which BFL would have access to.
I was refering to full custom asics as "real" asics to which standart cell asics belong since they use the same manufactureing technique except they use tech libraries instead of construcing their own gates and sub-circuits. On the physical layer it is the same thing. FPGA conversion asics however are not, and that's the only "asic" which BFL would have access to.
BFL has mentioned that the USB power is not for the mining hardware. It's only for the coffee warmer. The circuit will require it's own external power supply.
Where did they mention that?
Source as usb-powered: The BFL homepage at the time this thread was created, as the consensus of the bitcointalk community. If BFL and their supporters now engage in backpeddeling that doesn't affect my case, it only strengthens it.
A walwart power supply fpga conversion product could indeed be capable of delivering that performance, at least in theory but it is still very questionable if the raw hashes figures would hold at that price.
If you people care to read the thread in it's entirety you'll see that has already been discussed.
*shrugs*
Assuming folks mine BTC for profit, the BFL ASIC is a necessary investment if folks want to stay competetive in the BTC mining market. I suspect that most folks that want to buy a BFL ASIC already have or have ordered the BFL FPGA products (Single or Rig) and those will be exchanged for the BFL ASIC when they become available plus half the price of the ASIC. They can still mine during the time they wait on the new product, sure they paid a bloody big chunk of cash up front, but I assume that as this is an investment, they are prepared to lose that money. That's what business is all about, taking risks and making money. Not taking the risk most probably will cost more money (that is an educated guess because we can't see the future and only hindsight is 20/20).
Let's say that BFL doesn't come close to the state hashing numbers, as long as performance is at least twice what it is now, no money is really lost. Maybe a bit more to compensate for the additional difficulty to compensate for the added extra hashing power. I doubt power consumption would be twice as high, because that would probably generate more heat then can be dissipated. Heck, if a $30k Rig could only do 100GHash/s, that is still four times more then a $15k Rig could do. Sure the advantage over the folks not using the new BFL products would be less great, but the financial advantage is still very much there.
If it was a scam, it could be made far more attractive for folks to invest in, more 'believable' numbers could be used, lower prices so more folks would be willing to risk it, etc. This reminds me very much of the time when the rumors of the iPad 3 and it's very high resolution display, there were many naysayers that it couldn't be done, stating very reasonable 'facts'. The problem was/is that technology isn't an analog increase, it's a digital one, with jumps in performance instead of a gradual increase. Even in the processor industry you don't buy a 100MHz proc and then a 101MHz proc. It went from 100MHz to 120MHz. From DVD to Blueray the maximum amount of data a single sided disk could contain increased 15 times (8.5GB to 128GB), sure those are not mainstream disks, but is a $30k Rig?
Honestly, if you don't trust BFL, your pretty screwd as a big miner (best price vs. MHash/s vs. KW/h). And if you don't trust BFL, that's your right and your welcome to your opinion, because after all, it is an opinion, nothing more. Folks that do believe are also welcome to their opinion. Personally I'll wait and see, not only do I have mixed feelings about the future of the BTC value and the difficulty of mining it, I'm also not currently in the position to mine for profit in any meaningful way (due to not enough budget for a BFL Rig and cooling issues, not to mention very high local power costs).
Assuming folks mine BTC for profit, the BFL ASIC is a necessary investment if folks want to stay competetive in the BTC mining market. I suspect that most folks that want to buy a BFL ASIC already have or have ordered the BFL FPGA products (Single or Rig) and those will be exchanged for the BFL ASIC when they become available plus half the price of the ASIC. They can still mine during the time they wait on the new product, sure they paid a bloody big chunk of cash up front, but I assume that as this is an investment, they are prepared to lose that money. That's what business is all about, taking risks and making money. Not taking the risk most probably will cost more money (that is an educated guess because we can't see the future and only hindsight is 20/20).
Let's say that BFL doesn't come close to the state hashing numbers, as long as performance is at least twice what it is now, no money is really lost. Maybe a bit more to compensate for the additional difficulty to compensate for the added extra hashing power. I doubt power consumption would be twice as high, because that would probably generate more heat then can be dissipated. Heck, if a $30k Rig could only do 100GHash/s, that is still four times more then a $15k Rig could do. Sure the advantage over the folks not using the new BFL products would be less great, but the financial advantage is still very much there.
If it was a scam, it could be made far more attractive for folks to invest in, more 'believable' numbers could be used, lower prices so more folks would be willing to risk it, etc. This reminds me very much of the time when the rumors of the iPad 3 and it's very high resolution display, there were many naysayers that it couldn't be done, stating very reasonable 'facts'. The problem was/is that technology isn't an analog increase, it's a digital one, with jumps in performance instead of a gradual increase. Even in the processor industry you don't buy a 100MHz proc and then a 101MHz proc. It went from 100MHz to 120MHz. From DVD to Blueray the maximum amount of data a single sided disk could contain increased 15 times (8.5GB to 128GB), sure those are not mainstream disks, but is a $30k Rig?
Honestly, if you don't trust BFL, your pretty screwd as a big miner (best price vs. MHash/s vs. KW/h). And if you don't trust BFL, that's your right and your welcome to your opinion, because after all, it is an opinion, nothing more. Folks that do believe are also welcome to their opinion. Personally I'll wait and see, not only do I have mixed feelings about the future of the BTC value and the difficulty of mining it, I'm also not currently in the position to mine for profit in any meaningful way (due to not enough budget for a BFL Rig and cooling issues, not to mention very high local power costs).
Jump to: