Topic: Bitfury: "16nm... sales to public start shortly" - page 32. (Read 108641 times)
There will probably be some profit, gotta keep the lights on after all - but nothing like the margins most product releases see. Punin had also talked to me about chips and info (which would have gone into the same project), but I haven't heard back from him in 3 weeks.
What say, punin?
We are indeed working with Joby, but will not disclose any commercial details.
His statements are not 100% correct factually as we have not delivered production chips or containers to clients yet and we are working with several clients and integrators.
I think Joby was trying to say they are growing very fast and their need for silicon can overwhelm us if it continues to grow as much as it has so far, but I don't think this (Bitcoin) business is large enough to cause capacity issues at TSMC just yet
Punin
I just have a quick question about Bitfury and BCN. There is a lot of info supporting BCN and its practices, most of it is not on the "up and up". Is your business model to strictly go with the highest bidder or is there any moral judgement involved in the decision? I am not trying to put your on the spot but here is what it looks like from my perspective.
- There is a group of people that are actually trying to do some good for the community by manufacturing a home miner. There will be ZERO profit and nobody's pocket will get lined. Here is the link (I know you are aware because we have spoke about chips
)https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1368507.180
-There is another group that has plenty of money and "may be shady". Those guys are for sure getting chips/containers etc as you mentioned above.
Although we have spoke, it was brief and there has been little to no correspondence since that point in time. I have actually had to go to the secondary market to try and obtain Bitfury chips. I hope you were sincere in what you stated to me and wish you were as proactive with our group as you are with the "Big Money" guys.
I'd guess material cost is at least $200 for an S7.
Currently, it's US$174 for BMT to produce 1 S7. It keeps dropping.
I'd guess material cost is at least $200 for an S7.
Currently, it's US$174 for BMT to produce 1 S7. It keeps dropping.
I think Joby was trying to say they are growing very fast and their need for silicon can overwhelm us
Does that not worry you - that there may be something illicit going on? No one is looking at the difficulty charts and thinking "I need to order me as many of those as exist", so if its not for making $/BTC, what else?
His statements are not 100% correct factually as we have not delivered production chips or containers to clients yet and we are working with several clients and integrators.
Does the statement about 16nm miners being available for the public in March still stand?
Hopefully Production runs of silicon has already started and is now a matter of getting the dies packaged (and tested?). Unless you are a very good customer of theirs TSMC will rape you on cost to package dies into usable chips vs what any of the plethora of chip packaging houses in Taiwan or wherever they have it done will charge. Just like TSMC does for their Foundry services the packaging end has to be scheduled in with other products being produced.
EDIR: An afterthought on the chip packaging... Since BitFury does like to own/control as much of the chip making process as possible, it wouldn't surprise me if they have a chip packaging division somewhere... One more way to keep costs and availability in-house and considering final packaging of the dies into actual chips counts for well over >75% of a chips final cost that can make for an interesting money shuffle between the various divisions.
His statements are not 100% correct factually as we have not delivered production chips or containers to clients yet and we are working with several clients and integrators.
Does the statement about 16nm miners being available for the public in March still stand?
What say, punin?
We are indeed working with Joby, but will not disclose any commercial details.
His statements are not 100% correct factually as we have not delivered production chips or containers to clients yet and we are working with several clients and integrators.
I think Joby was trying to say they are growing very fast and their need for silicon can overwhelm us if it continues to grow as much as it has so far, but I don't think this (Bitcoin) business is large enough to cause capacity issues at TSMC just yet
The $100 price seems REALLY improbable......
Meanwhile a container at $3M seems really plausible!
If BCN were getting S7's for $100, they could make way more money by selling them for $400, and not need to worry about their facilities costs or BTC price.
The $100 price seems REALLY improbable......
The $100 price seems REALLY improbable......
I'd guess material cost is at least $200 for an S7.
And just for luck, although not Bitfury related, he (BCN)
I have been following the progress of BitClub Network here
Quote
pays Bitmain $100 for an S7
I have been following the progress of BitClub Network here
Not a chance.
This thread is really interesting for me, not being a tech head but willing to learn.
But back to the actual title of the thread "Bitfury: "16nm... sales to public start shortly"....
I was listening to this https://soundcloud.com/heryptohow/roger-ver-vs-joby-weeks-sasha-daygame-juan-galt-jeff-berwick
BitClub Network are an MLM funded mining operation, they have a pool with currently just under 40 PH/s, somewhere around 4% of the total.
The conversation on the audio came about because BCN promoters were using Roger Ver's name in their material, and he got a bit pissed about that.
A person called Joby Weeks represents BitClub Network, altho a formal position in the operation is unclear.
In it, he makes several claims of relevance to this thread.
I wonder what your thoughts are, especially punin's, as Weeks' claims flatly contradict what he has been saying.
What say, punin?
Some of Weeks' claims (transcribed by me, 99% word for word, check them yourselves)
Also, BCN has increased mining capacity by double since 22nd Jan, referring in their pool to
And just for luck, although not Bitfury related, he (BCN)
I have been following the progress of BitClub Network here
But back to the actual title of the thread "Bitfury: "16nm... sales to public start shortly"....
I was listening to this https://soundcloud.com/heryptohow/roger-ver-vs-joby-weeks-sasha-daygame-juan-galt-jeff-berwick
BitClub Network are an MLM funded mining operation, they have a pool with currently just under 40 PH/s, somewhere around 4% of the total.
The conversation on the audio came about because BCN promoters were using Roger Ver's name in their material, and he got a bit pissed about that.
A person called Joby Weeks represents BitClub Network, altho a formal position in the operation is unclear.
In it, he makes several claims of relevance to this thread.
I wonder what your thoughts are, especially punin's, as Weeks' claims flatly contradict what he has been saying.
What say, punin?
Some of Weeks' claims (transcribed by me, 99% word for word, check them yourselves)
Quote
"I've got the new (Bitfury) 16nm tech chips"
Quote
"BCN are the only people in the world with Bitfury chips, buying all they can produce."
Quote
We've got 12 PH/s Bitfury containers
Quote
buying $17million of Bitfury containers at $3m a piece
Also, BCN has increased mining capacity by double since 22nd Jan, referring in their pool to
Quote
bitclubfury940.bf
And just for luck, although not Bitfury related, he (BCN)
Quote
pays Bitmain $100 for an S7
I have been following the progress of BitClub Network here
This paper is a load of garbage. SHA256 is not an algorithm that tolerates 'approximation' which, if the writers had bother to do their research, they would have realised very quickly. Every bit at every stage is cucial, you can't just leave ones out that you think don't matter.
What they may have been meaning is that by using different types of adder in the A and E calculations the die size could be made smaller, but at lot of folks got this message a long time ago.
C'mon, brontosaurus, think before writing. SHA256 by itself doesn't tolerate any approximation, but Bitcoin mining does tolerate high error rates very well.What they may have been meaning is that by using different types of adder in the A and E calculations the die size could be made smaller, but at lot of folks got this message a long time ago.
This paper isn't "garbage". It is just "publish or perish" tripe. Somewhat more calm review of this paper done by me about two weeks ago:
Sergio Demian-Lerner has discussed this in February of 2015 on his blog:
https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/faster-sha-256-asics-using-carry-reduced-adders/
Basically it is an interesting idea, but neither Sergio nor those 3 guys discussed how it could be affected by the overall pipeline design. It seems like those guys from UIUC considered only one (or maybe two) pipeline layouts (the alternate drawn in dashed lines).
Much better science would be to consider way more pipeline layouts including something extreme like 32-way pipelined ripple-carry-adder that adds two 32-bit integers in 32 clocks. It seems slow, but the area is unbeatable. At least those guys explicitly discussed area*delay products. But it doesn't seem like they carried this to the ultimate conclusion of power/hash rate and area/hash rate (or better yet price/hash rate).
But it is the only paper that I've seen that was actually brave enough to include the plain ripple-carry-adder (RCA) in the final comparison tables and graphs.
https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/faster-sha-256-asics-using-carry-reduced-adders/
Basically it is an interesting idea, but neither Sergio nor those 3 guys discussed how it could be affected by the overall pipeline design. It seems like those guys from UIUC considered only one (or maybe two) pipeline layouts (the alternate drawn in dashed lines).
Much better science would be to consider way more pipeline layouts including something extreme like 32-way pipelined ripple-carry-adder that adds two 32-bit integers in 32 clocks. It seems slow, but the area is unbeatable. At least those guys explicitly discussed area*delay products. But it doesn't seem like they carried this to the ultimate conclusion of power/hash rate and area/hash rate (or better yet price/hash rate).
But it is the only paper that I've seen that was actually brave enough to include the plain ripple-carry-adder (RCA) in the final comparison tables and graphs.
I understand that this might be wholly irrelevant since this project will soon have standard ASIC chips (Bitfury?), but here is something interesting about the approximate mining.
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/approximate-mining-could-increase-bitcoin-mining-profits-by-30-percent-research-shows/
Not sure if it was already discussed. If yes, ignore and I will delete this post later.
I wonder if this has to be implemented on a chip+software or could be some additional circuit that provides the adder that they described =Kogge-Stone Adder (KSA).
Apparently, the result is ~30% hashing speed gain.
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/approximate-mining-could-increase-bitcoin-mining-profits-by-30-percent-research-shows/
Not sure if it was already discussed. If yes, ignore and I will delete this post later.
I wonder if this has to be implemented on a chip+software or could be some additional circuit that provides the adder that they described =Kogge-Stone Adder (KSA).
Apparently, the result is ~30% hashing speed gain.
This paper is a load of garbage. SHA256 is not an algorithm that tolerates 'approximation' which, if the writers had bother to do their research, they would have realised very quickly. Every bit at every stage is cucial, you can't just leave ones out that you think don't matter.
What they may have been meaning is that by using different types of adder in the A and E calculations the die size could be made smaller, but at lot of folks got this message a long time ago.
I understand that this might be wholly irrelevant since this project will soon have standard ASIC chips (Bitfury?), but here is something interesting about the approximate mining.
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/approximate-mining-could-increase-bitcoin-mining-profits-by-30-percent-research-shows/
Not sure if it was already discussed. If yes, ignore and I will delete this post later.
I wonder if this has to be implemented on a chip+software or could be some additional circuit that provides the adder that they described =Kogge-Stone Adder (KSA).
Apparently, the result is ~30% hashing speed gain.
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/approximate-mining-could-increase-bitcoin-mining-profits-by-30-percent-research-shows/
Not sure if it was already discussed. If yes, ignore and I will delete this post later.
I wonder if this has to be implemented on a chip+software or could be some additional circuit that provides the adder that they described =Kogge-Stone Adder (KSA).
Apparently, the result is ~30% hashing speed gain.
i saw that. i was reading http://rakeshk.crhc.illinois.edu/dac_16_cam.pdf
very interesting indeed, tho above my personal "tech grade" haha (tho threads like this help with that ;p)
I understand that this might be wholly irrelevant since this project will soon have standard ASIC chips (Bitfury?), but here is something interesting about the approximate mining.
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/approximate-mining-could-increase-bitcoin-mining-profits-by-30-percent-research-shows/
Not sure if it was already discussed. If yes, ignore and I will delete this post later.
I wonder if this has to be implemented on a chip+software or could be some additional circuit that provides the adder that they described =Kogge-Stone Adder (KSA).
Apparently, the result is ~30% hashing speed gain.
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/approximate-mining-could-increase-bitcoin-mining-profits-by-30-percent-research-shows/
Not sure if it was already discussed. If yes, ignore and I will delete this post later.
I wonder if this has to be implemented on a chip+software or could be some additional circuit that provides the adder that they described =Kogge-Stone Adder (KSA).
Apparently, the result is ~30% hashing speed gain.
Better hope you don't snap off the nipple or you'd have to replace the whole board.
Also, temperatures 60% lower is a really bad way of saying what they're trying to say. 60% lower temperature from, say, 60C is about -140C if you define temperature properly.
But, interesting.
Also, temperatures 60% lower is a really bad way of saying what they're trying to say. 60% lower temperature from, say, 60C is about -140C if you define temperature properly.
But, interesting.
Just tossing this rather interesting idea out there for general cogitation.... http://www.ecnmag.com/news/2015/10/liquid-cooling-moves-chip-denser-electronics
Any reacharounds are a bonus in my books
Jump to: