Topic: BitFury Design, Licensing, Mass production - page 2. (Read 13019 times)

Yeah, its a 2400w PSU module. Something like that really should cost $550-600.

I was totally going to use them in my rig, but they are damn expensive. http://www.meanwell.com/search/rsp-3000/rsp-3000-spec.pdf
Nice lugs for attaching bus bars to.

Those kind of modules (lots of manufs make them) are typically used in either redundant PSU housings hold 2 to 4 modules, or people use them with custom wiring harnesses if they have specific wiring requirements.

I dunno about redundant, but they are Mean Well PSUs, which are some of the best in the industry. You can see the MW logo in the pics.

Wait, you're already using redundant modules for the PSU? Thats totally okay then. Theres 2 or 3 1400w or more models out there, although they all use a different incompatible interface.


So you're going to sell 2U boxes initially? 500w in a 2U could be easily done.

Why not to wait before full disclosure ? It would be interesting anyway... I think that you do not even imagine scale of these optimizations, as you are asking questions that I started to ask when started this journey :-) I would even describe storyline how different decisions were make, and if would have enough time for that - arrange in a way that you could try to guess what was done next, not disclosing it before you read next page. Just be around to remind me to do this.

Hrm, I was wrong. Athena Power sells a 1100w non-redundant: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817338021

Well. ASIC is much more expensive. If you would get simple ASIC that would just work, but you get it with 100% success probability at affordable level - that would be rather slow 90nm or 130 nm chip, it would be like what 28-nm chips could give with their best performance and special price from fpga manufacturers. Say if altera or xil would decide to sell their chips less but more q-tys for mining - then ASIC project would end up with failure. And it would took long time to develop it as well.

If you would like to make really tricky and quick ASIC, then there could be epic failures and risks are very high. I would like to design such ASIC, but only if backed with investments about $1 - $1.2 mio and having possibility to order several times multiwafer which would be thrown away as "bad" result.... But when I am talking about that conditions people say that I am completely crazy. But that is true - without doing actual experiments, you would not get TOP results, as going proven way - you will get proven results of course... Or even simpler things like e-asic or altera hardcopy.

However really quick ASIC will outperform, but lot of money could be just thrown away with it, so there will be gradually improving and competing ASIC solutions. And this will be risky hop... Look how difficult hop from GPU to FPGA is, however FPGA are superior... Still most miners use GPU, and I still see much space to promote GPU mining, when these cards are installed @ home. And with ASIC it will be even more difficult. So for ASICs to succeed difficulty AND exchange rate should rise to level, so whole mining market would increase in side - currently it is like $1 mio per month mined, then if exchange rate will not rise - it will be about $0.5 mio per month... For low-end ASIC it would be tough play, also when you consider that optimized ASIC or discounted 28-nm chips would blow it out from game even without returning NRE costs.

Also ASIC must be available to interested parties, because myself is interested in condition, that there will be no single party in bitcoin who owns network... And if that happens - I'll really work hard to prevent this condition. Also I see that FPGAs can be competetive to ASIC while GPU would have much bigger gap in performance, so ASIC over GPU takeover is much more likely than ASIC vs FPGA.

+++ for mining co-generation - that's really nice. I can now implement pool and heat in in summer :-) without mining I would not waste heat for that :-) Now I have more than enough useful heat. However many still thinks that it is crazy way.

1.5 sq. mm wires. ( AWG 15 ).


For current big bf-110 we used RSP-3000-12 - 200 Amps @ 12 V . Boards however consume only ~160 Amps. So there's reserve for overclocking or for grid under-voltage condition. I expect to put something nice and reliable installed into box as well. They're not cheap, but it is crazy to put cheap PSU to power such expensive equipment.


I have not misstated. 0.4 kV L-L - that's about 230 Volts phase - to - neutral fed from transformer. When it gets to me, due to losses in cables - it gets to standard 215 - 220 Volts phase - to - neutral voltage. And then
22 x 218 x 3 = 14.4 kW approx.

I am not using 4U design right now - 4U design is during planning... look @ photos on www.bitfury.org - that are the bf-110 used now for mining!

I can't disprove you, and didn't intend to.  I was just asking what your price point was, should the community prove both willing and able to hit that price point.  I consider compatition a good thing, but it's still replication of work and if it can reasonablely be avoided, benefits all concerned.  Replication of work can't always be reasonablely be avoided.  I'm personally not interested in a fpga solution, even though I would consider it technically superior.  I'm personally interested in an asic solution, because I can use the waste heat to warm my home in winter, so I believe that basement mining operations will always be a factor, because professional mining operations not only have to deal with the overhead of dumping heat, they also have to outperform the basement miners to such a degree to overcome the economic advantages of co-generation.

Well. Here's the plan - finish before 20th-30th June design of smaller device (4U or 2U sized - we have debates with shalab.si about that). To accomplish it, I actually need at 6th-15th June spec ready and circuit in approved state. So if till 1st June there will be no constructive discussion here about device, then I'll go finishing it alone. As far as I understood for many people that's just nice hobby... But I am kind of person who dislikes things half-done and half-working... So I've already invested in it half year full time + many nights into it and all non-spent cash as well, and I expect others who would like to deliver hashing power to have more serious approach as well. About open source - if someone would do this "as hobby" investing like 10 hours per week or so, he would need approx. 40 weeks to use all clues I gave already to make design. By that time I would glad to know that person, because his skill is great, I would be even more excited if someone would make it 350-370 Mh/s without rising VCCINT voltage.  But I consider case that someone replicate within next 33-50 days AND PUBLISH OPEN-SOURCE as low chance. Then at that time _WE_ will have everything ready for deployment. And yes - I love competition as it enforces you to do best things and be one step ahead.

Meanwhile still doing design negotiations who will make assembly of boards and where, who will do assembly of these devices and delivery and who will sell and service them worldwide. Then we'll start production - I aim at 2-3 month lead time, but during first period I plan to reinvest all of income into devices production to lower lead times and make interesting offer - basically you pay higher if you get device quick. So if someone would like to install 10 devices, he could start testing first one tomorrow.

During production period I expect to ramp of from 500 chips per month level to 1000-1200 chips per month delivered. within 6 month frame. That is about 4500 - 5000 chips delivered. But it could be better, if additional financing would come in play, that would allow to use other equities to finance bitcoin farms productions instead of just paying in cash. Actually I would like to push spartans hard and make target higher at 10k chips, but that would be difficult to get.

So expectations are for licensing - $100k - $200k for chips licensing and $25k-$50k for bitstream hashing power improvement within current offer.

Then, when spartan's will not be hot anymore - all of existing solution will go opensource, and main production line would switch to Artix, so price per Mh/s would drop another time and profit margin for manufacturing will be about difference between DIY spartan6 and artix7 solution.

So what is problem with opensource - I am pro-opensource, but I really doubt that with donations it is possible to get that amounts for such non-popular project like spartan6-miner. If it would be mass-product with say $1 - $10 donations it would work however. It is the problem I see - amounts are high compared to % of users interested in it within current bitcoin community size. Manufacturers of boards unlikely would jump into it. Miners possibly, but that depends % how much they would invest into disclosure and how many chips they would get then. And I believe many of miners would just hate this initiative, because they would like better that things won't change, they get still 50 BTC coinbase, etc. etc.

But if I am wrong - then I expect you to prove it. Let's develop procedure on how fundraising will be performed, how much efforts needed to advertise it, who will oversee funds (say what will happen if only 30% of target amount raised, as funds should be returned back). Right today I am not bound with any agreements about this bitstream usage, but I think it will be fair and necessary step of mine to use raised money and give buy offer to all current co-owners of current equipment, because this open-sourced bitstream could give sharp difficulty rise. Also this should be done relatively quickly - within 4-week time frame. Because when designing will be finished, I would definitely enter into bindings with different parties, and would not be able to decide alone whether this should go open source or not, and it could be difficult to get consensus. But anyway - this will be interesting case - if it works, then definitely for many chips there will be best bitstreams available, nice competition among designers would rise.

Molex's peripheral cable uses AMP 1-480424-0, AMP 60619-1, AMP 1-480426-0, and AMP 60620-1 for the socket housing, socket, pin housing, and pins respectively. This is rated for 13 amps. However, these are commonly wired with 18 AWG wiring. Putting 13 amps through this will melt the wiring, let alone 13 amps on every single plug in the chain. And although it has 4 pins, only one set are for 12v, the other set is for 5v.

Also, I hope you're using enterprise rated PSUs. You don't need redundant, but the largest non-redundant PSUs you can typically buy are in the 850w to 900w range. Not quite the 1100w you're aiming for. They do make 600-700w 2U non-redundant PSUs though, so you can always double up.


I actually think that programmable voltage in range 1.15 V .. 1.45 V would be good. If someone would decide to risk with Spartans but get higher returns - then that's OK. Their devices would give +20%. If one would decide to go with less electricity consumption - then switch to 1.15 V and lower clocks. It just adds challenge with PSU - it should be still efficient in all ranges of power consumption.