BM1385 is full custom, so is our 3rd gen.
So currently you are in the same team with Dogie, aren't you? (Bitmain team)btw:
It seems that KNC finally started to deploy it's 16nm
Interesting times ahead.
Topic: [BitBet] BitFury's ASIC WILL WORK WITH POWER < 1 W / GH/s (Read 3998 times)
btw:
It seems that KNC finally started to deploy it's 16nm
Interesting times ahead.
BM1385 is full custom, so is our 3rd gen.
So currently you are in the same team with Dogie, aren't you? (Bitmain team) 
BitFury (Valery Nebesny) attempted to do async, domino logic 55nm 5 engine scrypt chip and failed.
That's actually incorrect info. You should sack the Mossad agent working for you
There are two all important parameters in Bitcoin ASICs:
GH/mm^2 - Capex and J/GH - Opex
GH/mm^2 - Capex and J/GH - Opex
Glad you brought that up! GH/mm^2 + J/GH is exactly the game we've been winning since the FPGA era.
With extreme design techniques, sub 0.1 J/GH is possible also on 28nm processes, the question is what will be the GH/mm^2 - miner cost.
What also counts is how much money you need to put down to have that chip hashing for you. I believe we're the leader in that as well.
Whenever BitFury gives efficiency numbers (J/GH), they never give the all important GH/mm^2 numbers.
Why would we give such revealing information to our competitors? And I don't really understand why the end user even needs to know about this? He cares for $/GH and J/GH and delivery times. GH/mm^2 is engineering porn. Our figures are NSFW
When they're selling hosted hash-rate of their 28nm machines to their customers, they claim the machine efficiency is 0.35 J/GH
Source?
It's baffling why you don't see the significance of GH/mm2 in the context of this discussion. Your company surely understands the advantages of running chips at low voltage and if you have a hashing engine running at the minimum energy point then it's possible to get some truly amazing efficiency. Trouble is, you then need multiple engines to get any speed.
That's why Guy's GH/mm2 metric is significant. You might also like to read this excellent paper by Tran and Baas that demonstrates very clearly the concept of minimum energy points although I'm guessing it's probably old news to you. Yes, I know it's for a 32 bit adder but the principle is still valid for SHA256 (which in any case uses 32 bit adders in the main pipeline and word generator)
http://web.ece.ucdavis.edu/~anhttran/files/papers/atran_icce10_adder.pdf
As for engineering porn, what you are currently offering isn't porn, it's more like burlesque where it' all tease. I don't think anyone believes the figures you released other than a crude attempt to worry your competitors and maybe dissuade them from building more capacity. Just like the statement one of your engineers made about everyone else being 18 months behind you, it's insulting their intelligence and
demeaning their abilities.
Personally, I would 100 times more trust what previous Intel engineers say can be done than a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs - unless the latter can actually prove how big their balls are.
Well, I actually did watch the whole testing process very closely and can confirm that 28nm figure to be empirically derived 
(I hope my word still has some value on these forums)
(I hope my word still has some value on these forums)Empirically derived? What on earth does that mean in the real world of engineering?
If you were an engineer at CERN working with subatomic particles with ultra short lifetimes I might understand using this expression, but in our macro world we have voltmeters, ammeters and oscilloscopes that negate the need for 'derivation'.
Are you trying to say that that put some figures into a simulator and uses some trial and error to get the result you want? Naturally, you are not answerable to anyone on this forum or indeed any paying customers, so whatever you claim doesn't need to be defended in any way.
What I'm saying is we have tested and profiled the 28nm chips extensively and this figure is a real world measured figure, not based on simulation. Hence the wording.
Back on topic, all I said about Bitfury is that no one has actually ever tested their miners who is able to speak about it, and so its hard to really take their repeated claims seriously. If you think I'm paid for PR, why don't you talk to Bitfury's actual PR company or their Head of Global PR.
Well, I actually did watch the whole testing process very closely and can confirm that 28nm figure to be empirically derived
(I hope my word still has some value on these forums)Empirically derived? What on earth does that mean in the real world of engineering?
If you were an engineer at CERN working with subatomic particles with ultra short lifetimes I might understand using this expression, but in our macro world we have voltmeters, ammeters and oscilloscopes that negate the need for 'derivation'.
Are you trying to say that that put some figures into a simulator and uses some trial and error to get the result you want? Naturally, you are not answerable to anyone on this forum or indeed any paying customers, so whatever you claim doesn't need to be defended in any way.
full custom, so is our 3rd gen.
Speaking of which, is that still Pickaxe (80/20 custom/auto), or do I need to be adding a line to the wiki?On the BitFury end.. as 16nm is claimed to have taped out, is there any chance we can prise some more solid info on the 28nm chip?
BitFury 16nm was indeed tapedout.
I don't believe they'll release any info on their 28nm, seems they're following "The Art of War"
BitFury (Valery Nebesny) attempted to do async, domino logic 55nm 5 engine scrypt chip and failed.
That's actually incorrect info. You should sack the Mossad agent working for you
There are two all important parameters in Bitcoin ASICs:
GH/mm^2 - Capex and J/GH - Opex
GH/mm^2 - Capex and J/GH - Opex
Glad you brought that up! GH/mm^2 + J/GH is exactly the game we've been winning since the FPGA era.
With extreme design techniques, sub 0.1 J/GH is possible also on 28nm processes, the question is what will be the GH/mm^2 - miner cost.
What also counts is how much money you need to put down to have that chip hashing for you. I believe we're the leader in that as well.
Whenever BitFury gives efficiency numbers (J/GH), they never give the all important GH/mm^2 numbers.
Why would we give such revealing information to our competitors? And I don't really understand why the end user even needs to know about this? He cares for $/GH and J/GH and delivery times. GH/mm^2 is engineering porn. Our figures are NSFW
When they're selling hosted hash-rate of their 28nm machines to their customers, they claim the machine efficiency is 0.35 J/GH
Source?
- LightFury floorplan came from Valery himself.
- The fact that it failed and the reason for its failure came from a designer known and respected by both parties.
- The 0.35 J/GH number came from two different bulk customers. You have them signed on draconian NDA so I can't reveal their identity.
Regarding GH/mm^2 (or $/GH/s):
The moderate hash-rate increase due to your 28nm deployment might be due to two different reasons:
- You reserve funds for your 16nm deployment
- Your number are not that good
full custom, so is our 3rd gen.
Speaking of which, is that still Pickaxe (80/20 custom/auto), or do I need to be adding a line to the wiki?On the BitFury end.. as 16nm is claimed to have taped out, is there any chance we can prise some more solid info on the 28nm chip?
I don't trust any claim from any company until a product is brought to market. In late June I think or early July KnC announced a 3D 16nm chip without any specifications or backup.
Lots of running of mouths to the press little in the way of public demonstrations. This is something the community needs to get rough on with any and all manufacturers. These companies need to be transparent in their home mines as well as the products they 'pronounce' or 'propose' to sell in the future. It's bad enough the are moving full steam ahead with consolidated mining operations. It's just like Central banks with a new spin, which wasn't the point of crypto-currency and BTC in the first place.
full custom, so is our 3rd gen.
Speaking of which, is that still Pickaxe (80/20 custom/auto), or do I need to be adding a line to the wiki?On the BitFury end.. as 16nm is claimed to have taped out, is there any chance we can prise some more solid info on the 28nm chip?
Whenever BitFury gives efficiency numbers (J/GH), they never give the all important GH/mm^2 numbers.
Why would we give such revealing information to our competitors? And I don't really understand why the end user even needs to know about this? He cares for $/GH and J/GH and delivery times. GH/mm^2 is engineering porn. Our figures are NSFW
That's the type of transparency which is good for everyone. This shouldn't become an industry which relies on "this tiny 20g portion of cake is only 100 calories!" style marketing. If you're going to claim a power efficiency (J/GH) it should be:
- The power efficiency of a marketable machine at the wall (J/GH)
- Or the real world power efficiency of a chip test at the predicted machine voltage (J/GH)
- Or a full voltage / power efficiency curve similar to Bitmain (J/GH graph)
- Or nothing at all
Currently it appears you've got a graph of J/GH and have simply quoted the lowest J/GH at the lowest voltage possible, even though you know you'll never ever run a machine that slow. We understand you have VCs to appease, but that doesn't mean you can't still play the gentlemanly game. Everyone loses when manufacturers revert to unsavoury marketing, such as the latest bitcoin miner I designed which achieves a record breaking 0.000 J/GH! You can preorder it today and get free staples along with your
Does that explain why others are often skeptical about your claims? Even if they're true, its impossible to know if its 10% or 90% marketing fluff.
BitFury (Valery Nebesny) attempted to do async, domino logic 55nm 5 engine scrypt chip and failed.
That's actually incorrect info. You should sack the Mossad agent working for you
There are two all important parameters in Bitcoin ASICs:
GH/mm^2 - Capex and J/GH - Opex
GH/mm^2 - Capex and J/GH - Opex
Glad you brought that up! GH/mm^2 + J/GH is exactly the game we've been winning since the FPGA era.
With extreme design techniques, sub 0.1 J/GH is possible also on 28nm processes, the question is what will be the GH/mm^2 - miner cost.
What also counts is how much money you need to put down to have that chip hashing for you. I believe we're the leader in that as well.
Whenever BitFury gives efficiency numbers (J/GH), they never give the all important GH/mm^2 numbers.
Why would we give such revealing information to our competitors? And I don't really understand why the end user even needs to know about this? He cares for $/GH and J/GH and delivery times. GH/mm^2 is engineering porn. Our figures are NSFW
When they're selling hosted hash-rate of their 28nm machines to their customers, they claim the machine efficiency is 0.35 J/GH
Source?
Bit of a weird thread to bump, but I'll believe it when I see it. The last 3 chips have never been independently verified or even seen outside of a super farm.
Considering they make up nearly 1/3rd of the network alone .... thats evidence enough.
Of power claims? Its only evidence that they have money, and $60M buys you a lot of miners and a lot of PR.
Bitmain pays you also for PR I remember times when Bitmain and Spondoolies were competitors on B2C market and Dogie pushed tons of shit on Spondoolies, Guy Corem answered Dogie.. and there was again and again.. What was it? PR
Regarding "buys a lot of miners" - do you have some inside? Did BitFury bought their miners? Whom? Bitmain?? It would be a sensasion
I haven't been contracted by Bitmain since May, so no they do not "pay me for PR". I've also generally been a supporter of Bitfury, who had the top spot and a near perfect score in my guide for a long long time. Guy claimed that the rating criteria specifically targeted them when it just didn't as it was applied on BFL first, and they still had 88/100 score. The rating criteria are designed to protect buyers, and their claims that they'd be able to finance the next generation without preorders or investment did indeed turn out to be false.
Back on topic, all I said about Bitfury is that no one has actually ever tested their miners who is able to speak about it, and so its hard to really take their repeated claims seriously. If you think I'm paid for PR, why don't you talk to Bitfury's actual PR company or their Head of Global PR.
Dogie, each huge company has PR manager. Would you said Bitmain doesn't have?
Your rating, as I wrote earlier, is rather candid - I don't have any remarks.
You are good at communication, indeed
Your arguments are convincing, but they are about other things. Last your post: "all I said about Bitfury is that no one has actually ever tested their miners who is able to speak about it" - and you are right. But one post before you had written absolutely another thing: "Its only evidence that they have money, and $60M buys you a lot of miners and a lot of PR". Each company have some reputation and you can't check yourself each detail. You may just believe or not. Sometimes companies with PR and money don't have good reputation, because there are some more important things in this world.
Back on topic, all I said about Bitfury is that no one has actually ever tested their miners who is able to speak about it, and so its hard to really take their repeated claims seriously. If you think I'm paid for PR, why don't you talk to Bitfury's actual PR company or their Head of Global PR.
Well, I actually did watch the whole testing process very closely and can confirm that 28nm figure to be empirically derived
(I hope my word still has some value on these forums)
was not bit fury a thing of the cex site too they where using its technology no? i mean they use doges ltc btc and usd and cards and bank accounts and do cloud but also had a section for fury
Bit of a weird thread to bump, but I'll believe it when I see it. The last 3 chips have never been independently verified or even seen outside of a super farm.
Considering they make up nearly 1/3rd of the network alone .... thats evidence enough.
Of power claims? Its only evidence that they have money, and $60M buys you a lot of miners and a lot of PR.
Bitmain pays you also for PR I remember times when Bitmain and Spondoolies were competitors on B2C market and Dogie pushed tons of shit on Spondoolies, Guy Corem answered Dogie.. and there was again and again.. What was it? PR
Regarding "buys a lot of miners" - do you have some inside? Did BitFury bought their miners? Whom? Bitmain?? It would be a sensasion
I haven't been contracted by Bitmain since May, so no they do not "pay me for PR". I've also generally been a supporter of Bitfury, who had the top spot and a near perfect score in my guide for a long long time. Guy claimed that the rating criteria specifically targeted them when it just didn't as it was applied on BFL first, and they still had 88/100 score. The rating criteria are designed to protect buyers, and their claims that they'd be able to finance the next generation without preorders or investment did indeed turn out to be false.
Back on topic, all I said about Bitfury is that no one has actually ever tested their miners who is able to speak about it, and so its hard to really take their repeated claims seriously. If you think I'm paid for PR, why don't you talk to Bitfury's actual PR company or their Head of Global PR.
...
Interesting, I didn't hear about BitFury's scrypt miners.. Were there any announcements? I remember epic fail with scrypt miners from Bitmain, when guys had pre-orders on their site and then said "ooops"
No, as I wrote it was a failed ASIC. Interesting, I didn't hear about BitFury's scrypt miners.. Were there any announcements? I remember epic fail with scrypt miners from Bitmain, when guys had pre-orders on their site and then said "ooops"
Bit of a weird thread to bump, but I'll believe it when I see it. The last 3 chips have never been independently verified or even seen outside of a super farm.
Considering they make up nearly 1/3rd of the network alone .... thats evidence enough.
Of power claims? Its only evidence that they have money, and $60M buys you a lot of miners and a lot of PR.
Dogie is bang on the money here, this announcement by Bitfury is simply an exercise in misdirection and PR bullshit. They have had several attempts to make a really high efficiency chip and obviously don't know the recipe. It's easy to say 'my chip can do xJ/GH/sec' without revealing key factors like how big it is (very important), what voltage it runs at and the clock speed at the rated efficiency. In all fairness to Bitmain with their BM1385 they have fullfiled most of these conditions, but no mention of the die size as yet.
To believe that Bitfury can go from an alleged 0.2 J/GH/sec in 28nm to 0.05 in 16nm is nonsense, unless they have very specific measurement points that bear no resemblance to actual operating conditions in practice. 16nm is not a magic bullet - at best you will get half of the power consumption of an existing 28nm design and maybe 2.5 - 3 x the transistor density, very much depending on your design and memory content. KNC tried this same trick with their solar chip, presumably to try to dissuade their competitors and this is more of the same.
The only company that has ever been totally transparent in what they claim to be able to achieve in terms of power efficiency AND tell you how they actually achieved it (eg domino logic) is Spondoolies, and that's largely due to the collective industrial experience of their people and their attention to detail. I'm pretty damn sure that if they were still selling to the public they could come out with all kinds of data about what they could achieve and how they could do it, but they have wisely stayed out of this game and left it to the bullshitters.
By the way, anyone every looked at the size of Bitfurys various 'boards' - they have an awful lot of people to pay......what on earth do they all do? Is this some kind of weird vanity project?
A little tidbit I can share (not under any kind of NDA):
BitFury (Valery Nebesny) attempted to do async, domino logic 55nm 5 engine scrypt chip and failed.
Here is the chip floor plan:
I really liked George BS statement: https://twitter.com/BitfuryGeorge/status/639064051612524544
There are two all important parameters in Bitcoin ASICs:
GH/mm^2 - Capex and J/GH - Opex
With extreme design techniques, sub 0.1 J/GH is possible also on 28nm processes, the question is what will be the GH/mm^2 - miner cost.
Whenever BitFury gives efficiency numbers (J/GH), they never give the all important GH/mm^2 numbers.
When they're selling hosted hash-rate of their 28nm machines to their customers, they claim the machine efficiency is 0.35 J/GH
Interesting, I didn't hear about BitFury's scrypt miners.. Were there any announcements? I remember epic fail with scrypt miners from Bitmain, when guys had pre-orders on their site and then said "ooops"
Bit of a weird thread to bump, but I'll believe it when I see it. The last 3 chips have never been independently verified or even seen outside of a super farm.
Considering they make up nearly 1/3rd of the network alone .... thats evidence enough.
Of power claims? Its only evidence that they have money, and $60M buys you a lot of miners and a lot of PR.
Bitmain pays you also for PR I remember times when Bitmain and Spondoolies were competitors on B2C market and Dogie pushed tons of shit on Spondoolies, Guy Corem answered Dogie.. and there was again and again.. What was it? PR
Regarding "buys a lot of miners" - do you have some inside? Did BitFury bought their miners? Whom? Bitmain?? It would be a sensasion
eveyrone knows Dogiie is a paid whore of Bitmain the whore is pushing Bitmain Antminers so hard - steam com in out of his arrs.. oh well to the thousands of poor small miners who are putting their last bitcoing to buy the machines - there is great deal of PH coming to market (21, BitFury) and your investment will evaporate soon ! Good luck guys buying these machines. As for Spoondolies too bad for the team who failed and now settled to be merged with BTC SHop (what!!) a $20 mln pink sheet market cap on OTC in Nasdaq. This is like 10x less than KNC valuation and you know where that has gone. Spoondolies sad to see being sour losers but oh well. BTC shop has like 2PH or so .. that is less than Bitmain 1000 servers .. bottom line Spoondolies has become irrelevant. In the arms race there are only few players left and they will drive ecosystem. As for BitFury I would not discount them. Look at their track record, look at their market share. Too bad the fker dont sell their machines but even if they did the good days of individual mining are gone. Unless price rallies to 600-700 then its interesting again..
the whore is pushing Bitmain Antminers so hard - steam com in out of his arrs.. oh well to the thousands of poor small miners who are putting their last bitcoing to buy the machines - there is great deal of PH coming to market (21, BitFury) and your investment will evaporate soon ! Good luck guys buying these machines. As for Spoondolies too bad for the team who failed and now settled to be merged with BTC SHop (what!!) a $20 mln pink sheet market cap on OTC in Nasdaq. This is like 10x less than KNC valuation and you know where that has gone. Spoondolies sad to see being sour losers but oh well. BTC shop has like 2PH or so .. that is less than Bitmain 1000 servers .. bottom line Spoondolies has become irrelevant. In the arms race there are only few players left and they will drive ecosystem. As for BitFury I would not discount them. Look at their track record, look at their market share. Too bad the fker dont sell their machines but even if they did the good days of individual mining are gone. Unless price rallies to 600-700 then its interesting again..
At the end of the day it's largely irrelevant what people say, particularly when they are effectively in the middle of a technological arms race to gain share of the network hash rate. Based on their track record I really couldn't see KNC passing up the chance to demonstrate a working 0.07 J/GH/sec chip to the press if they really had one, but they haven't and you have to wonder why.
When engineers make statements that effectively demean their counterparts in other companies, especially those that probably have combined chip design experience an order of magnitude more than the statement makers organisation, then you really know that they are making things up.
The companies you really should pay attention to are the ones that aren't making a fuss over what they may or may not have. Their attitude towards direct competitors also speaks volume about their company, its ethos and its capabilities.
When engineers make statements that effectively demean their counterparts in other companies, especially those that probably have combined chip design experience an order of magnitude more than the statement makers organisation, then you really know that they are making things up.
The companies you really should pay attention to are the ones that aren't making a fuss over what they may or may not have. Their attitude towards direct competitors also speaks volume about their company, its ethos and its capabilities.
brontosaurus,
I got to work BitFury chips 55nm rev.1 at 0.4w/gh. I'm not a strong developer. Is not the limit.
These chips are fabulous and gorgeous. 55nm rev.2 even better. I have no doubt, that all this reality.
But now, non-BitFury miners in a bad position, because they have no chance to compete.
2Spondoolies-Tech,
I don't have this image. This 55nm? Or 28nm, 16nm?
IMHO. Now, as two years ago. The only key parameter - w/Gh.
My miners on BitFury chips 55nm rev1(2) successfully work all the time and will work much more. Energy efficiency greater than non-downclock Spondoolies-Tech LTD «RockerBox» or BM1384. GH/mm^2 - minor optimization. A3255 and A3233 better BF756C55 at Gh/mm^2. But... They are turned off. Energy consumption.
Currently we do not have the choice of equipment. KnC, BitFury, Spondoolies-Tech not for sale. Miners can not go far on old-technology in downclock chips.
I wrote that it's 55nm scrypt chip (failed)I got to work BitFury chips 55nm rev.1 at 0.4w/gh. I'm not a strong developer. Is not the limit.
These chips are fabulous and gorgeous. 55nm rev.2 even better. I have no doubt, that all this reality.
But now, non-BitFury miners in a bad position, because they have no chance to compete.
2Spondoolies-Tech,
I don't have this image. This 55nm? Or 28nm, 16nm?
IMHO. Now, as two years ago. The only key parameter - w/Gh.
My miners on BitFury chips 55nm rev1(2) successfully work all the time and will work much more. Energy efficiency greater than non-downclock Spondoolies-Tech LTD «RockerBox» or BM1384. GH/mm^2 - minor optimization. A3255 and A3233 better BF756C55 at Gh/mm^2. But... They are turned off. Energy consumption.
Currently we do not have the choice of equipment. KnC, BitFury, Spondoolies-Tech not for sale. Miners can not go far on old-technology in downclock chips.
You're comparing full custom chips (BitFury rev1, rev2) to standard cell designs (RB, BM1384)
BM1385 is full custom, so is our 3rd gen.
brontosaurus,
I got to work BitFury chips 55nm rev.1 at 0.4w/gh. I'm not a strong developer. Is not the limit.
These chips are fabulous and gorgeous. 55nm rev.2 even better. I have no doubt, that all this reality.
But now, non-BitFury miners in a bad position, because they have no chance to compete.
2Spondoolies-Tech,
I don't have this image. This 55nm? Or 28nm, 16nm?
IMHO. Now, as two years ago. The only key parameter - w/Gh.
My miners on BitFury chips 55nm rev1(2) successfully work all the time and will work much more. Energy efficiency greater than non-downclock Spondoolies-Tech LTD «RockerBox» or BM1384. GH/mm^2 - minor optimization. A3255 and A3233 better BF756C55 at Gh/mm^2. But... They are turned off. Energy consumption.
Currently we do not have the choice of equipment. KnC, BitFury, Spondoolies-Tech not for sale. Miners can not go far on old-technology in downclock chips.
I got to work BitFury chips 55nm rev.1 at 0.4w/gh. I'm not a strong developer. Is not the limit.
These chips are fabulous and gorgeous. 55nm rev.2 even better. I have no doubt, that all this reality.
But now, non-BitFury miners in a bad position, because they have no chance to compete.
2Spondoolies-Tech,
I don't have this image. This 55nm? Or 28nm, 16nm?
IMHO. Now, as two years ago. The only key parameter - w/Gh.
My miners on BitFury chips 55nm rev1(2) successfully work all the time and will work much more. Energy efficiency greater than non-downclock Spondoolies-Tech LTD «RockerBox» or BM1384. GH/mm^2 - minor optimization. A3255 and A3233 better BF756C55 at Gh/mm^2. But... They are turned off. Energy consumption.
Currently we do not have the choice of equipment. KnC, BitFury, Spondoolies-Tech not for sale. Miners can not go far on old-technology in downclock chips.
Bit of a weird thread to bump, but I'll believe it when I see it. The last 3 chips have never been independently verified or even seen outside of a super farm.
Considering they make up nearly 1/3rd of the network alone .... thats evidence enough.
Of power claims? Its only evidence that they have money, and $60M buys you a lot of miners and a lot of PR.
Dogie is bang on the money here, this announcement by Bitfury is simply an exercise in misdirection and PR bullshit. They have had several attempts to make a really high efficiency chip and obviously don't know the recipe. It's easy to say 'my chip can do xJ/GH/sec' without revealing key factors like how big it is (very important), what voltage it runs at and the clock speed at the rated efficiency. In all fairness to Bitmain with their BM1385 they have fullfiled most of these conditions, but no mention of the die size as yet.
To believe that Bitfury can go from an alleged 0.2 J/GH/sec in 28nm to 0.05 in 16nm is nonsense, unless they have very specific measurement points that bear no resemblance to actual operating conditions in practice. 16nm is not a magic bullet - at best you will get half of the power consumption of an existing 28nm design and maybe 2.5 - 3 x the transistor density, very much depending on your design and memory content. KNC tried this same trick with their solar chip, presumably to try to dissuade their competitors and this is more of the same.
The only company that has ever been totally transparent in what they claim to be able to achieve in terms of power efficiency AND tell you how they actually achieved it (eg domino logic) is Spondoolies, and that's largely due to the collective industrial experience of their people and their attention to detail. I'm pretty damn sure that if they were still selling to the public they could come out with all kinds of data about what they could achieve and how they could do it, but they have wisely stayed out of this game and left it to the bullshitters.
By the way, anyone every looked at the size of Bitfurys various 'boards' - they have an awful lot of people to pay......what on earth do they all do? Is this some kind of weird vanity project?
A little tidbit I can share (not under any kind of NDA):
BitFury (Valery Nebesny) attempted to do async, domino logic 55nm 5 engine scrypt chip and failed.
Here is the chip floor plan:
I really liked George BS statement: https://twitter.com/BitfuryGeorge/status/639064051612524544
There are two all important parameters in Bitcoin ASICs:
GH/mm^2 - Capex and J/GH - Opex
With extreme design techniques, sub 0.1 J/GH is possible also on 28nm processes, the question is what will be the GH/mm^2 - miner cost.
Whenever BitFury gives efficiency numbers (J/GH), they never give the all important GH/mm^2 numbers.
When they're selling hosted hash-rate of their 28nm machines to their customers, they claim the machine efficiency is 0.35 J/GH
Bit of a weird thread to bump, but I'll believe it when I see it. The last 3 chips have never been independently verified or even seen outside of a super farm.
Considering they make up nearly 1/3rd of the network alone .... thats evidence enough.
Of power claims? Its only evidence that they have money, and $60M buys you a lot of miners and a lot of PR.
Dogie is bang on the money here, this announcement by Bitfury is simply an exercise in misdirection and PR bullshit. They have had several attempts to make a really high efficiency chip and obviously don't know the recipe. It's easy to say 'my chip can do xJ/GH/sec' without revealing key factors like how big it is (very important), what voltage it runs at and the clock speed at the rated efficiency. In all fairness to Bitmain with their BM1385 they have fullfiled most of these conditions, but no mention of the die size as yet.
To believe that Bitfury can go from an alleged 0.2 J/GH/sec in 28nm to 0.05 in 16nm is nonsense, unless they have very specific measurement points that bear no resemblance to actual operating conditions in practice. 16nm is not a magic bullet - at best you will get half of the power consumption of an existing 28nm design and maybe 2.5 - 3 x the transistor density, very much depending on your design and memory content. KNC tried this same trick with their solar chip, presumably to try to dissuade their competitors and this is more of the same.
The only company that has ever been totally transparent in what they claim to be able to achieve in terms of power efficiency AND tell you how they actually achieved it (eg domino logic) is Spondoolies, and that's largely due to the collective industrial experience of their people and their attention to detail. I'm pretty damn sure that if they were still selling to the public they could come out with all kinds of data about what they could achieve and how they could do it, but they have wisely stayed out of this game and left it to the bullshitters.
By the way, anyone every looked at the size of Bitfurys various 'boards' - they have an awful lot of people to pay......what on earth do they all do? Is this some kind of weird vanity project?
Bit of a weird thread to bump, but I'll believe it when I see it. The last 3 chips have never been independently verified or even seen outside of a super farm.
Considering they make up nearly 1/3rd of the network alone .... thats evidence enough.
Of power claims? Its only evidence that they have money, and $60M buys you a lot of miners and a lot of PR.
Bit of a weird thread to bump, but I'll believe it when I see it. The last 3 chips have never been independently verified or even seen outside of a super farm.
Considering they make up nearly 1/3rd of the network alone .... thats evidence enough.
Bit of a weird thread to bump, but I'll believe it when I see it. The last 3 chips have never been independently verified or even seen outside of a super farm.
You mean like what those German guys were supposed to be doing for the last year?
BitFury's ASICs will work even better!
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-completion-16nm-bitcoin-mining-asic/
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-completion-16nm-bitcoin-mining-asic/
Quote
BitFury has announced it has completed the tape-out for its 16NM ASIC bitcoin mining chips, which were first revealed to be in production in February.
The chip will achieve energy efficiency of 0.06 joules per gigahash, compared to the 0.2 joules per gigahash of its 28nm predecessor. BitFury suggested the chip will deliver "four times the compute power" of its previous 28NM chip.
The chip will achieve energy efficiency of 0.06 joules per gigahash, compared to the 0.2 joules per gigahash of its 28nm predecessor. BitFury suggested the chip will deliver "four times the compute power" of its previous 28NM chip.
I hopeeveryone realizes, soon as those 16nm chips come online at that power rating. If they just mine for themselves, they will singlehandly own the blockchain. Bitcoin will be effectively centralized therefore dead then.
BitFury's ASICs will work even better!
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-completion-16nm-bitcoin-mining-asic/
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-completion-16nm-bitcoin-mining-asic/
Quote
BitFury has announced it has completed the tape-out for its 16NM ASIC bitcoin mining chips, which were first revealed to be in production in February.
The chip will achieve energy efficiency of 0.06 joules per gigahash, compared to the 0.2 joules per gigahash of its 28nm predecessor. BitFury suggested the chip will deliver "four times the compute power" of its previous 28NM chip.
The chip will achieve energy efficiency of 0.06 joules per gigahash, compared to the 0.2 joules per gigahash of its 28nm predecessor. BitFury suggested the chip will deliver "four times the compute power" of its previous 28NM chip.
And I'm quite sure that BitFury will not overlook the simple logic of setting the ASIC clocks to idle when there's no work in the queue - unlike BFL.
When would it be idle?
Who cares about the power it uses if it's not affordable to most people
If someone thinks that is SCAM put your vote in the special topic/poll: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pollbitfury-what-do-you-think-203107
Quite possibly, thanks for the info!
Considering the notion of Elden Tyrell's 'Process Invariant' metrics, I have a feeling BitFury's efficiency per Watt will be high.
i.e. BFL's logic translated to transistor arrangement is poor considering, purportedly, on a 65nm process node.
And I'm quite sure that BitFury will not overlook the simple logic of setting the ASIC clocks to idle when there's no work in the queue - unlike BFL.
Too bad BitFury's opinion is that mining will eventually centralize - that can be used to speculate that BitFury is going to keep all of his hashpower in the hands of a private organization.
Blah.... sucks.
Edit:
BitFury, let me invest some cash in your operation
i.e. BFL's logic translated to transistor arrangement is poor considering, purportedly, on a 65nm process node.
And I'm quite sure that BitFury will not overlook the simple logic of setting the ASIC clocks to idle when there's no work in the queue - unlike BFL.
Too bad BitFury's opinion is that mining will eventually centralize - that can be used to speculate that BitFury is going to keep all of his hashpower in the hands of a private organization.
Blah.... sucks.
Edit:
BitFury, let me invest some cash in your operation
lol
This 4x better than BFL and Avalon
This 4x better than BFL and Avalon
Just found in Russian subforum this BitBet link:
BitFury's ASIC will be demonstrated to mine Bitcoin either publicly, in an open to the public event announced at least two weeks in advance, or privately as confirmed by unaffiliated, well respected members of the community (this specifically excludes known shills such as Luke-jr) and will consume less than 1 W per GH/s for powering the chip and the board (excluding any cooling appliances).
Initiated by Bitfury, who placed the first Yes bet.
http://bitbet.us/bet/450/bitfurys-asic-will-work-with-power-1/
Bet resolution: 15/06/2013.
This bet was initiated by Bitfury.
BitFury's ASIC will be demonstrated to mine Bitcoin either publicly, in an open to the public event announced at least two weeks in advance, or privately as confirmed by unaffiliated, well respected members of the community (this specifically excludes known shills such as Luke-jr) and will consume less than 1 W per GH/s for powering the chip and the board (excluding any cooling appliances).
Initiated by Bitfury, who placed the first Yes bet.
http://bitbet.us/bet/450/bitfurys-asic-will-work-with-power-1/
Bet resolution: 15/06/2013.
This bet was initiated by Bitfury.
Jump to: