BFL: Chips have shipped, on their way to US - page 3.

PuertoLibre

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Korbman on May 12, 2013, 07:43:11 PM

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on May 12, 2013, 07:23:31 PM

State's Attorney(s) have already been in contact with BFL due to shipping delays. There is one document with BFL's response to the S.A. floating around the forums somewhere.

This was my initial thought as well. I remember seeing it ages ago, I just can't seem to find it again. Ah well..I know it's around here somewhere..

kano

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 1798

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: erschiessen on May 12, 2013, 07:33:36 PM

How do they hash at 10x the speed of Avalon with the same chip technology?
(110 nm)

I don't recall, I believe it was grnbrg, one of the early receivers of Jally's posted pix that showed 2 ASICs in the 5 GH machine.

I wish that BFL would have taken the OTHER characteristic from Avalon.
They emulate the same mentality toward their customers (a sense of superiority, a condescending attitude) .
I wish BFL would have taken a page from BitSymCom's work ethic.

65nm

PuertoLibre

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Korbman on May 12, 2013, 07:20:10 PM

Quote from: ecliptic on May 12, 2013, 07:05:46 PM

47 C.F.R. 15.1b for starters, unless they already have it licensed (I have seen nothing to that end except some empty talk many months ago)

My guess is that they've already passed this part...given that essentially any electronic device has to pass it before going to market. If they didn't get past this, do you really think they'd send out an "illegal" device to dozens of media outlets?

Anything else, or was this your only thought on "many broken laws and regulations"?

You just want to hear what you want to hear.

Anything contradictory will be ignored by you.

Your mental framing needs adjustments.

ecliptic

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: erschiessen on May 12, 2013, 08:10:51 PM

ecliptic,
You got me to thinking.

I will have to look up that pic, to see if there is a significant difference in footprint.

If i remember correctly, BFL has a little daughterboard PCB that the ASIC themselves mount to, that daughterboard is then soldered to their main PCB.

erschiessen

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

ecliptic,
You got me to thinking.

I will have to look up that pic, to see if there is a significant difference in footprint.

ecliptic

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: erschiessen on May 12, 2013, 07:33:36 PM

How do they hash at 10x the speed of Avalon with the same chip technology?
(110 nm)

I don't recall, I believe it was grnbrg, one of the early receivers of Jally's posted pix that showed 2 ASICs in the 5 GH machine.

I wish that BFL would have taken the OTHER characteristic from Avalon.
They emulate the same mentality toward their customers (a sense of superiority, a condescending attitude) .
I wish BFL would have taken a page from BitSymCom's work ethic.

One possibility is that BFL's chips may be larger, yielding a higher hash rate per chip, higher (relative to smaller chips) TDP per chip, but fewer chipers per wafer.

Avalon's 110nm 7x7mm 48-QFN chips are slower but theoretically require no external heatsinking, merely PCB design heatsinking

BFL using a BGA package has their thermal pad on the top of the chip (Just like CPU/GPU/etcs with high TDP) and have the external heatsink added on top. The QFN has it on the bottom.

Korbman

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on May 12, 2013, 07:23:31 PM

State's Attorney(s) have already been in contact with BFL due to shipping delays. There is one document with BFL's response to the S.A. floating around the forums somewhere.

This was my initial thought as well. I remember seeing it ages ago, I just can't seem to find it again. Ah well..I know it's around here somewhere..

erschiessen

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

How do they hash at 10x the speed of Avalon with the same chip technology?
(110 nm)

I don't recall, I believe it was grnbrg, one of the early receivers of Jally's posted pix that showed 2 ASICs in the 5 GH machine.

I wish that BFL would have taken the OTHER characteristic from Avalon.
They emulate the same mentality toward their customers (a sense of superiority, a condescending attitude) .
I wish BFL would have taken a page from BitSymCom's work ethic.

meowmeowbrowncow

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: tom_o on May 12, 2013, 06:23:36 PM

When's someone gonna take them to court then?

It would have to be initiated by a govt agency if criminal. Most likely State's Attorneys.

Btw, State's Attorney(s) have already been in contact with BFL due to shipping delays. There is one document with BFL's response to the S.A. floating around the forums somewhere.

If there were even a hint of fraud (patently false advertising), and considering the volume of disgruntled customers, I have a feeling the FTC or a State's Attorney would take interest in BFL again.

If you really want to see where that path goes, contact your S.A. and the FTC.

Korbman

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ecliptic on May 12, 2013, 07:05:46 PM

47 C.F.R. 15.1b for starters, unless they already have it licensed (I have seen nothing to that end except some empty talk many months ago)

My guess is that they've already passed this part...given that essentially any electronic device has to pass it before going to market. If they didn't get past this, do you really think they'd send out an "illegal" device to dozens of media outlets?

Anything else, or was this your only thought on "many broken laws and regulations"?

ecliptic

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: Korbman on May 12, 2013, 07:00:55 PM

Quote from: ecliptic on May 12, 2013, 06:18:56 PM

BFL already broke many laws and regulations. And they still have no FCC radiated emissions testing done.

Nobody cares, apparently.

Hmm, interesting. Can you point out the specific laws and regulations violated by Butterfly Labs? I'm genuinely curious, actually.

47 C.F.R. 15.1b for starters, unless they already have it licensed (I have seen nothing to that end except some empty talk many months ago)

Korbman

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ecliptic on May 12, 2013, 06:18:56 PM

BFL already broke many laws and regulations. And they still have no FCC radiated emissions testing done.

Nobody cares, apparently.

Hmm, interesting. Can you point out the specific laws and regulations violated by Butterfly Labs? I'm genuinely curious, actually.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: tom_o on May 12, 2013, 06:23:36 PM

When's someone gonna take them to court then?

Kano, please take the stand.

tom_o

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

When's someone gonna take them to court then?

ecliptic

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on May 12, 2013, 05:57:32 PM

Quote from: ecliptic on May 12, 2013, 05:47:35 PM

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on May 12, 2013, 05:33:09 PM

Quote from: Valle on April 22, 2013, 09:10:30 PM

I've noticed that this phone of bfl's chip have geostamp pointing to Unive in Fremont, CA: http://ow.ly/i/1EM8o
The company produces ASICs from 130nm to 600nm.

Ummm,...

Hypothetically, let's say the Fab has an updated web site.

Would this mean there is a possibility that BFL's ASIC's are not, in fact, 65 nm.

And, if so, that would constitute quite a serious charge of fraud.

Surely, they wouldn't be so careless. Disregard. Or speculate. Whatevs.

(I'll just leave this here. BFL chip power spec 5x what was 'anticipated')

That'd be hilarious, I recall seeing someone from the Avalon team suggesting this possibility months ago

Hilarious, maybe. But there would be serious criminal charges. Even if only part of the solution is 65 nm (ie - one of the ancillary chips) a jury would convict BFL after hearing the evidence.

So, I doubt BFL would have put themselves in such a position. *shrugs*

BFL already broke many laws and regulations. And they still have no FCC radiated emissions testing done.

Nobody cares, apparently.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1276

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on May 12, 2013, 05:57:32 PM

Hilarious, maybe. But there would be serious criminal charges. Even if only part of the solution is 65 nm (ie - one of the ancillary chips) a jury would convict BFL after hearing the evidence.

So, I doubt BFL would have put themselves in such a position. *shrugs*

I seriously doubt that they would ever get prosecuted, and even if they did it is unlikely that such a thing is even legally a problem. I mean specs change all the time. In the very best of circumstances the specs, appearance, timing of the units are going to be way off of the originally projected item. Nobody is going to sue anybody over that. Or at least they are not win anything until the distant future.

BFL could just deliver some unit at some point after the 1/2 million Avalon chips get glued on to an open-source board for $10/ea and get the legal monkey off their backs. Or at least put it in a cage for 10 years. BFL has check-mated their 'customers'. Time to suck it up and move on.

meowmeowbrowncow

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: ecliptic on May 12, 2013, 05:47:35 PM

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on May 12, 2013, 05:33:09 PM

Quote from: Valle on April 22, 2013, 09:10:30 PM

I've noticed that this phone of bfl's chip have geostamp pointing to Unive in Fremont, CA: http://ow.ly/i/1EM8o
The company produces ASICs from 130nm to 600nm.

Ummm,...

Hypothetically, let's say the Fab has an updated web site.

Would this mean there is a possibility that BFL's ASIC's are not, in fact, 65 nm.

And, if so, that would constitute quite a serious charge of fraud.

Surely, they wouldn't be so careless. Disregard. Or speculate. Whatevs.

(I'll just leave this here. BFL chip power spec 5x what was 'anticipated')

That'd be hilarious, I recall seeing someone from the Avalon team suggesting this possibility months ago

Hilarious, maybe. But there would be serious criminal charges. Even if only part of the solution is 65 nm (ie - one of the ancillary chips) a jury would convict BFL after hearing the evidence.

So, I doubt BFL would have put themselves in such a position. *shrugs*

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1276

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on May 12, 2013, 05:33:09 PM

Quote from: Valle on April 22, 2013, 09:10:30 PM

I've noticed that this phone of bfl's chip have geostamp pointing to Unive in Fremont, CA: http://ow.ly/i/1EM8o
The company produces ASICs from 130nm to 600nm.

Ummm,...

Hypothetically, let's say the Fab has an updated web site.

Would this mean there is a possibility that BFL's ASIC's are not, in fact, 65 nm.

And, if so, that would constitute quite a serious charge of fraud.

Surely, they wouldn't be so careless. Disregard. Or speculate. Whatevs.

(I'll just leave this here. BFL chip power spec 5x what was 'anticipated')

600nm. Super-size me baby! You know our moto in America: "Bigger is Better!"

ecliptic

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on May 12, 2013, 05:33:09 PM

Quote from: Valle on April 22, 2013, 09:10:30 PM

I've noticed that this phone of bfl's chip have geostamp pointing to Unive in Fremont, CA: http://ow.ly/i/1EM8o
The company produces ASICs from 130nm to 600nm.

Ummm,...

Hypothetically, let's say the Fab has an updated web site.

Would this mean there is a possibility that BFL's ASIC's are not, in fact, 65 nm.

And, if so, that would constitute quite a serious charge of fraud.

Surely, they wouldn't be so careless. Disregard. Or speculate. Whatevs.

(I'll just leave this here. BFL chip power spec 5x what was 'anticipated')

That'd be hilarious, I recall seeing someone from the Avalon team suggesting this possibility months ago

meowmeowbrowncow

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: Valle on April 22, 2013, 09:10:30 PM

I've noticed that this phone of bfl's chip have geostamp pointing to Unive in Fremont, CA: http://ow.ly/i/1EM8o
The company produces ASICs from 130nm to 600nm.

Ummm,...

Hypothetically, let's say the Fab has an updated web site.

Would this mean there is a possibility that BFL's ASIC's are not, in fact, 65 nm.

And, if so, that would constitute quite a serious charge of fraud.

Surely, they wouldn't be so careless. Disregard. Or speculate. Whatevs.

(I'll just leave this here. BFL chip power spec 5x what was 'anticipated')

Topic: BFL: Chips have shipped, on their way to US - page 3. (Read 25583 times)