[Guide] Dogie's Comprehensive Manufacturer Trustworthiness Guide [1st Feb 2016] - page 21.

praeluceo

full member

Activity: 123

Merit: 100

Quote from: dogie on November 06, 2014, 03:10:17 PM

Quote from: jimmothy on November 06, 2014, 02:36:06 PM

Quote from: praeluceo on November 06, 2014, 02:22:24 PM

I ~~may be~~ am biased, as a buyer of a batch of Prismas who has yet to receive them, but ASICMiner has also failed to reply to -any- emails since the original purchase (either friedcat or phasebird), so although I know some have shipped I have seen no communication since the 25th from them. I'd recommend lowering their communication score again:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9425492

Also, the Prisma may not have been a pre-order because the hardware was already designed, but the BE200s were not in-hand, and when the first batch came back flawed they were unable to react (let alone communicate) fast enough, so I'd ding them again for handling a hardware launch extremely poorly.

I agree communication has been absolutely terrible. TBH I think it is significantly impacting the company's sales.

The BE200's were in hand, just many of the chips were defective.

Do you have a source on the chips being in hand but defective?

The best source I have was the post on October 24th from friedcat in a different topic I cross-posted it to the Prisma topic here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9436661

They gave similar details on their Facebook page around the same time. No other details have been released from friedcat that I've seen, and phasebird's only reply was in the Prisma topic on the 25th:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9324615

It sounds like either TSMC had damaged some of the ASICs, or (more likely) there's a defect in the way they sent the VHDL to TSMC and their tapeout went...poorly.

It's enough that they aren't doing another run of BE200s, and friedcat jumps into describing the BE300 and its power efficiency and timeframe as being Q1 2015. So I think the BE200 issue is on ASICMiner's end, not on TSMC's.

jimmothy

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: dogie on November 06, 2014, 03:10:17 PM

Do you have a source on the chips being in hand but defective?

Quote from: friedcat on October 24, 2014, 10:43:48 AM

As known by OEM producers, several large batches of BE200 had problems with
popping chips affecting whole boards due to the misoperation from the packaging
company. It hindered afterwards chip sales and delayed the starting time of
Tube/Prisma sales. Later supply of BE200 has no such problem and filtering process
on old BE200 is also underway.

Sounds like this happened a while ago.

SEGMining

member

Activity: 88

Merit: 10

The Bitmain calculation appears to be off by 4 points, unless I'm doing it wrong.

10+10+4+10+6+10+10+8+10 = 78

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: jimmothy on November 06, 2014, 02:36:06 PM

Quote from: praeluceo on November 06, 2014, 02:22:24 PM

I ~~may be~~ am biased, as a buyer of a batch of Prismas who has yet to receive them, but ASICMiner has also failed to reply to -any- emails since the original purchase (either friedcat or phasebird), so although I know some have shipped I have seen no communication since the 25th from them. I'd recommend lowering their communication score again:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9425492

Also, the Prisma may not have been a pre-order because the hardware was already designed, but the BE200s were not in-hand, and when the first batch came back flawed they were unable to react (let alone communicate) fast enough, so I'd ding them again for handling a hardware launch extremely poorly.

I agree communication has been absolutely terrible. TBH I think it is significantly impacting the company's sales.

The BE200's were in hand, just many of the chips were defective.

Do you have a source on the chips being in hand but defective?

jimmothy

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: praeluceo on November 06, 2014, 02:22:24 PM

I ~~may be~~ am biased, as a buyer of a batch of Prismas who has yet to receive them, but ASICMiner has also failed to reply to -any- emails since the original purchase (either friedcat or phasebird), so although I know some have shipped I have seen no communication since the 25th from them. I'd recommend lowering their communication score again:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9425492

Also, the Prisma may not have been a pre-order because the hardware was already designed, but the BE200s were not in-hand, and when the first batch came back flawed they were unable to react (let alone communicate) fast enough, so I'd ding them again for handling a hardware launch extremely poorly.

I agree communication has been absolutely terrible. TBH I think it is significantly impacting the company's sales.

The BE200's were in hand, just many of the chips were defective.

praeluceo

full member

Activity: 123

Merit: 100

I ~~may be~~ am biased, as a buyer of a batch of Prismas who has yet to receive them, but ASICMiner has also failed to reply to -any- emails since the original purchase (either friedcat or phasebird), so although I know some have shipped I have seen no communication since the 25th from them. I'd recommend lowering their communication score again:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9425492

Also, the Prisma may not have been a pre-order because the hardware was already designed, but the BE200s were not in-hand, and when the first batch came back flawed they were unable to react (let alone communicate) fast enough, so I'd ding them again for handling a hardware launch extremely poorly.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: btmtb on October 23, 2014, 07:26:23 AM

Quote from: dogie on October 22, 2014, 09:12:47 PM

Blackarrow have had an 'O' infraction for quite some time now.

Ahh, sorry I misunderstood (it seems obvious now). I assumed that such as egregious general attitude to, and direct breaches, of ethics would take the absolute score for this section down to -5, but I understand now that it is simply a modifier. What would it take to lower this to zero? Are the negative applied once regardless of quantity of breaches, or across x-size time frames etc?

Mixture. The category isn't designed to be super detailed because then one gets accused of being biased for every 1 point each way.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

seriously why not simply rate BA, BFL and AMT with a bold 0?
you need to emphasis their complete failure and provide anyone else from ever falling in their unscrupulous nets again.

btmtb

sr. member

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

Scam-Busting PSA: Beware of Black Arrow Software

Quote from: dogie on October 22, 2014, 09:12:47 PM

Blackarrow have had an 'O' infraction for quite some time now.

Ahh, sorry I misunderstood (it seems obvious now). I assumed that such as egregious general attitude to, and direct breaches, of ethics would take the absolute score for this section down to -5, but I understand now that it is simply a modifier. What would it take to lower this to zero? Are the negative applied once regardless of quantity of breaches, or across x-size time frames etc?

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: btmtb on October 22, 2014, 01:32:26 PM

To add to the ethics debate, I believe that BlackArrow should fall under this criteria:
O = Other generic unethical behaviour = -5

Deleting over 100 pages of customer discussions on this forum, for posting customers personal contact details on the users Trust rating page - in breach of their own privacy policy, allowing out personal details as customers to be exposed to unconnected third party's and failing to offer a proper, proven, explanation... the list still goes on. What additional information or evidence would you need to consider each of these dogie?

cheers

Blackarrow have had an 'O' infraction for quite some time now.

Koontas

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 502

Is it actually true that Spondoolies has distributed ALL units ON TIME?

I'm sure that will change with the SP-20 if it is the case currently.

btmtb

sr. member

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

Scam-Busting PSA: Beware of Black Arrow Software

To add to the ethics debate, I believe that BlackArrow should fall under this criteria:
O = Other generic unethical behaviour = -5

Deleting over 100 pages of customer discussions on this forum, for posting customers personal contact details on the users Trust rating page - in breach of their own privacy policy, allowing out personal details as customers to be exposed to unconnected third party's and failing to offer a proper, proven, explanation... the list still goes on. What additional information or evidence would you need to consider each of these dogie?

cheers

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: bolehvpn on October 21, 2014, 10:00:30 PM

Btw I perceive hardware quality as a bigger determinant than 'uses own chips'. I think history has shown that using their own chips may actually increase problems especially when coupled with pre-orders. At least when integrating other chips, they tend to be more certain about performance and is easier for them to meet deadlines. Perhaps there should be given a different weightage?

After all just imagine if a miner manufacturer has good comms and delivers on time, but the hardware has some serious issues.... Even if the manufacturer only scores a 1 in quality of hardware, he would still be able to probably get a 80+ rating if the dockage in ethics and refunds are not complete.

This has been discussed many times, search the thread for "chips". Its to do with the 7 figure investment from the company required up front, compared to buying quantities as low as 4 figures from the market.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: allcoinminer on October 21, 2014, 09:07:50 PM

A lot of hardware/software issues with Bitmain S3 and S3+ miners since launch.
Again S4 have PSU issues.
But you mentioned in your rating as minor issues only.
Please revise it if possible.

Nothing wrong with S3s, they're probably the most prolific single SKU of any miner outside of USBs.

They're considered minor issues as customers are being compensated - only the company losses out.

Askit2

hero member

Activity: 981

Merit: 500

DIV - Your "Virtual Life" Secured and Decentralize

Quote from: bolehvpn on October 21, 2014, 09:41:05 PM

The S3 and S3+ miners have not been all that problematic as far as I know?

S4 is a clear problem with both cgminer and PSU issues. Remains to be seen how far they can resolve it. Guide should reflect that latest S4 release has issues but compensation is underway and rating should be lowered until the compensation and more people get their replacement PSUs and then raised again.

In regards to the S3 and S3+ I would disagree. Miners shipped with cgminer 3.12 current was 4.6 They shipped 1 major and many minor revisions behind. Many security fixes one that can lead to lost revenue via a redirect call so your miners mine for others. I wouldn't call that nor the double at least processor load trivial. They promised months ago to fix it.

The S4 seems like the S2 again. Power supply issues. Not really new. I could be wrong I don't follow them.

bolehvpn

full member

Activity: 136

Merit: 100

Btw I perceive hardware quality as a bigger determinant than 'uses own chips'. I think history has shown that using their own chips may actually increase problems especially when coupled with pre-orders.

At least when integrating other chips, they tend to be more certain about performance and is easier for them to meet deadlines.

Perhaps there should be given a different weightage?

After all just imagine if a miner manufacturer has good comms and delivers on time, but the hardware has some serious issues....

Even if the manufacturer only scores a 1 in quality of hardware, he would still be able to probably get a 80+ rating if the dockage in ethics and refunds are not complete.

bolehvpn

full member

Activity: 136

Merit: 100

The S3 and S3+ miners have not been all that problematic as far as I know?

S4 is a clear problem with both cgminer and PSU issues. Remains to be seen how far they can resolve it. Guide should reflect that latest S4 release has issues but compensation is underway and rating should be lowered until the compensation and more people get their replacement PSUs and then raised again.

allcoinminer

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 504

Quote from: klondike_bar on October 21, 2014, 03:17:45 PM

Quote from: dogie on October 21, 2014, 01:57:23 PM

Quote from: allcoinminer on October 21, 2014, 10:38:30 AM

Quote from: IYFTech on October 21, 2014, 08:27:57 AM

According to "Bitmain employee of the Year" dogie in his updated "no conflict of interest here" manufacturer trustworthiness guide - these are classed as "minor" problems, so obviously they are not too bothered about it. Their "please wait patiently" phrase is one of their favourites, ask any S2 owner, they've been "waiting patiently" for 9 weeks now......and still nothing Roll Eyes

dogie is an employee of Bitmain and there is a conflict of interest in conscious or unconscious level.
So, dogie statement should be considered as Bitmain's even if he is not agreeing that there is no conflict of interest.
It's already evident in his messages.

Wrong thread.

Quote from: dogie on October 20, 2014, 05:09:09 PM

This company's rating has been updated in the Manufacturer Trustworthiness thread.

[This message won't be monitored, discuss your concerns in the thread.]

Wrong thread.

Its hard to properly rate a company that is paying you

A lot of hardware/software issues with Bitmain S3 and S3+ miners since launch.
Again S4 have PSU issues.
But you mentioned in your rating as minor issues only.
Please revise it if possible.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: mwizard on October 21, 2014, 07:54:03 PM

Should Bitfury really be the top rating company in the list.

They do not sell to the general public. Just manufacture for their own mammoth mining farms and to sell to a handful of other large miners. As they have not sold to the general public for some time how can they be assessed?

Perhaps there could be a rating or flag that indicates suppliers which "Sell to General Public".

Are those large miners not the general public?

mwizard

full member

Activity: 203

Merit: 100

Should Bitfury really be the top rating company in the list.

They do not sell to the general public. Just manufacture for their own mammoth mining farms and to sell to a handful of other large miners. As they have not sold to the general public for some time how can they be assessed?

Perhaps there could be a rating or flag that indicates suppliers which "Sell to General Public".

Topic: [Guide] Dogie's Comprehensive Manufacturer Trustworthiness Guide [1st Feb 2016] - page 21. (Read 131506 times)