Topic: [Guide] Dogie's Comprehensive Manufacturer Trustworthiness Guide [1st Feb 2016] - page 3. (Read 131287 times)

Well revealing some unethical behaviour would be considered maliciously so you simply can't do it because of your boss restrains. Knew that already.


That's exactly what I am saying. Because in December Bitmain needed more help with the ratings/sales than in September. It's not rocket science.

Within the ethics category, all companies start at 10/10 and receive penalties removing points, hence they've lost 2 points for having a farm. It appears you're suggesting that they've been given points for having a farm? Not sure why you want to know the size of their farm or why its relevant, but antpool.com. A large chunk of that is self mine / contracted mining.

Which penalty do you think should be applied / not be applied? What evidence can you provide to substantiate a rating change?


I can't confirm or deny a withdrawn, unevidenced allegation. Guy will repost in the future if it becomes appropriate.


That's not how an NDA works.

1) An NDA only protects against confidential information
2) Confidential information provided from a non discloser (in this case Guy), removes the confidentiality of that information. Unless Guy was covered by an NDA with Bitmain also.
3) I don't need to release the information in order to use it here, its just not useful for others. Like the feedback on Guy's original comment has drawn.
4) Any confidentiality agreements / ethics / promises in this case are on Guy's side, not my side.
5) My NDA with Bitmain allows for disclosures of confidential information, non maliciously. That means I am free to do 99.9% of what the community requires. The NDA is primarily there to stop the selling of trade secrets / information not known to the market.
6) The information wasn't particularly useful or applicable to the guide anyway.


I think you need to reread what you wrote. You're saying that I purposely delayed a reduction in "a direct competitor of Bitmain".

For start Ethics and your boss Bitmain. What evidence can you provide to back up this rating? Show me evidence of the size of Bitmain's own mining farm.


Someone once said that Guy has a very good knowledge of the "T"s (threats) in this business. If you think that having a real life business that handles tens of millions of $ is simply done without knowing 1 or 2 things about your competitors then you are fooling yourself. The community overall will always be left out of some information because of its nature. If we are still at it why not advocate for the community to have all the information inside Bitcoin Foundation? We can extrapolate that to everything that touches Bitcoin because...well it's the community and they must know everything. Even if it was for the community to get them where they are now they don't owe anything to the community. They provided a service that the community requested badly and paid premium amounts for it. Nothing else. This is just regular business practice. They see a need and they satisfy it with an added markup. Don't make it sound special when there is nothing special about it.


The fact that dogie didn't deny it makes it good enough evidence


So legally you can't use the information that you know to lower some of their ratings? Is this what you are saying?


They don't need to feel that you are influenced. When you apply a rating to punish one direct competitor of Bitmain 3 months later than you should right when Bitmain needed it the most it is more then obvious about your intentions.

Are you being paid by Canaan Creative & Bitmain as an individual or as your so called "business"?

Questions which don't start with "I hate you" are always welcome.


Was with Spondoolies ('normal' NDA terms = quite strong), we nullified that going forwards
Am currently with Bitmain (weak terms, only designed to punish maliciousness/selling secrets etc)
Was very briefly with HashCoins (to cover the Scrypt chip manufacturer)
That's it unless I'm forgetting someone. Companies trust me with information implicitly because they know they'll get nothing out of me regarding other companies, as other companies get nothing regarding them.


I don't think there are any ratings that encompass something that is secret or not already known by the market, if that's what you meant?


That was a ... strange question. The answer is the same as above, I don't believe so. I guess it could be argued that my exposure to Bitmain technical problems / handling / customer emails could be considered privileged? Even then its more of having a sense of scale that wouldn't usually be available to a reader.

For example if 10 people have failed S5 controllers, that's 10 out of 1000s and 1000s of customers. 10 complaints looks bad, but its probably fewer than expected.


Miners being 'free' for reviews doesn't sway anything. I almost exclusively do 'free' miner reviews so everyone has the same playing field. You'll notice the vast majority of the reviews' content is opinion free and is mainly a statement of facts and documentation. "Yes it didn't blow up, yes it achieved the specs its being sold at, here's what it looks like, here's what you'll need if you decide to buy one." Because of that lack of opinion, there isn't really anything to be swayed.

I will however use opinion where there isn't a quantitative alternative, especially when it comes to noise. I stopped using dba and started giving my opinion on the quality of the noise / annoyingness / loudness. Its highly subjective and difficult to cross compare, but its more expressive than "62 dba". What exactly does "62 dba" mean for me as a buyer? Does "62 dba" mean its a deep roar or a screeching mess? If the most of our worries is that I could have a skewed opinion on noise quality, then we're in a good place.

Its also worth pointing out that as miners have grown cheaper, the man hours on reviews have far outstripped any value that the miners provide. The professional level photography, the 360 degree views, the hours and hours of repeated stress testing and temperature chamber runs are expensive [in time cost], and remain the same regardless of the value of the miner. A $100 miner gets the same opportunity and treatment as a $3000 miner.


As it pertains to this guide, it never has impacted it and it never will do. If you remember back I used to have a single rating against each company, and it was hard to quantify or explain what made a company good or bad. I swapped to a numerical criteria system so its entirely transparent what components make up a company's rating. And then each criteron has its own discrete levels and descriptions, so even if I was biased, I shouldn't be able to manipulate ratings. That being said, if someone wants to find something wrong then they'll find something wrong regardless. Discrete levels means its either a or b, and not everyone can agree with the way it tips. Someone is always going to disagree and that's okay, because 491,210 cooks spoil the broth.


Speaking more generally, I can understand some people's feelings but there isn't anything there. Some people take it too far and because they fell they'd be influenced, then they feel that I MUST be influenced. They project their own inability to remain neutral, aggressively, onto me and that's not right. I truly do not care what company is 1st, 2nd, 300th, what company goes out of business, what company makes $3 trillion. Companies will come and go, companies will do well and do badly and that's okay. What I do care about is that people don't get trampled on in the interim, and so I consider myself to work for the community primarily. Because of that, it doesn't matter who I am affiliated with because they still have to play with the same criteria everyone else does. I'm probably more critical on companies I do work with, if you want to refer to that as being biased.

I also don't have a particular affinity to money nor any dire need to generate it. I work full time on Bitcoin but could just as easily go get a 'normal' job and earn far more than I need. That means that 'free' miners
mean nothing to me, and any contracts with particular companies just means I'm watching everything you do. I'm that annoying parent who makes you do your homework as soon as you get home from school, and makes you incessantly clean your room. If I'm working with you, you can't hide anything from me and you certainly can't pay to hide it under the rug. Its analogous to those Skype logs that came out in the BFL case, imagine I'm sitting there reading everything. It doesn't matter what you're press release is saying or when you think believe make up know chips will finally be ready because I know the truth.

tldr: I don't care enough about money for it to get anywhere near affecting my opinion or values. Every company gets the same treatment, and if anything the companies I work with are put under more scrutiny because they physically can't hide things from me.


I don't believe so, the closest we'd gotten to a discussion is "omg ur Bitmain why doesn't x company have 300,000/100 points".


Thanks for the informative questions.

Nothing is NDA'ed but it gets a bit messy. tldr its not Guy's story(ies) to tell. Unless his sources want to go public, there isn't anything anyone can do with the information. ... If that makes sense?

If you have answers to any of the questions, and can answer them honestly, I am sure I am not the only one that would be interested in your input.... but it sounds like you are not allowed to speak on certain subjects and I'd rather not be given half answers or PR statements that I need to decipher

I hope this is not to invasive, and please consider these educational questions as simply questions. I have no ulterior motive other than to learn more about this ecosystem and specifically people and projects which may impact new miners.

I understand you are bound by NDA agreements.
How does knowledge you possess regarding mining companies impact this guide?

I understand you will not violate an NDA in your answer, but please elaborate using an example, analogy, fictional if necessary, and completely in another arena of the world as needed. I am confident you can answer this type of scenario without violating anything as I have been involved in NDAs and NCCs over the years, and I am currently under a Non-Compete Clause as part of a contract now. Some of the facilities I have visited require some unusual things to walk in the door. As in one place had it written in the contract to face forward when walking through a specific area and was explained to me they calculated the average person's peripheral vision. I do not know how true it was, but it was in the contract.

To be more specific, through the aforementioned 'example' and as a follow up question does the knowledge you have (which I assume the general public does not) impact the "Comprehensive Manufacturer Trustworthiness Guide" thread in any way?

I have referenced your material a few times regarding the miners I have and when completely fresh I remember reading the first couple of pages here as a data point. For future consideration in my use and decision to recommend to others I appreciate your candor.

While I find it extremely difficult to imagine most people being unable to maintain an unbiased opinion if they are being paid in any form, be it cash, btc, free miners, cloud mining, or videos of their favorite dogs, but, I can think of circumstances where someone would not be swayed by those things. I do not know if your personal situation would fall in the circumstances I am imagining. I do know anything is possible. Would you mind elaborating on anything you find relative to your past and present situation(s) which may affect your ability to remain unbiased either positively or negatively?

If this has already been outlined please point me to the right location. I have read many posts, but haven't seen a discussion regarding the attributes I think a person must possess to remain completely neutral to a company while also being paid.

I appreciate your time and what I hope to be an informative response.

[All the questions seem to be directed to Guy, if I've missed any then please requote.]

Why not share it with customers?   I believe ethics to be a big deciding factor when investing your money in a company manufacturing mining rigs. There is a good amount of trust involved.

Also, for clarification, would Dogie's guide criteria include any hidden criteria he must meet to satisfy Bitmain or are we talking about the criteria he has set on the guides?  

That would be the case if this guide was in fact impartial, but unlike what dogie says, by nature his relationships with manufacturer automatically makes his guide biased, whether it is done in a "transparent" way or not. Best to just move along and not pay attention to it, and hope that new buyers do the same.

In fairness it's all going the way of the dodo with so few manufacturers left, and no intention of producing consumer-grade hardware on the horizon.  Even if a company with poor communication, poor ethics, and at most an average track record came out with the latest and greatest hardware with any chance of ROI, everyone would jump at it regardless of what logic, this guide, or signs from God told them. I think Bitmain and others have realized this and stopped giving a f#@% about PR.

so the fact that it may not shoehorn into this guide criteria is no reason not to post the information if it is indeed factual.

people can decide for themselves if the information has merit enough to influence a buying decision....

We're not. Come on, don't be a bore 

Bit pointless having a Trustworthiness Advert if you're not allowed to advertise isn't it? Mind you, it's a pointless "guide" anyway if he's getting "paid" by half of the advertisers fabricators.....

In our Skype chat, Dogie explained why he can't used the information I've shared with him per his guide criteria. I'm content with his answer.

I think it's great!!

Come on Guy - spill the beans dude. Tell us all the gory dogie details, let's hear it all! 

This is the most unprofessional crap you've managed to post, Guy. If you're gonna get any investors to help you launch that 14/16nm line you should leave the Public Relations to someone who knows what they're doing. We need our miners!!!

I had this same feeling back when I saw Yifu (Avalon), Josh (BFL) & Sam (KNC) having a great time at the bar while their customers, myself included, were hung out to dry  

What is the reason for not being able to reveal this information regarding ethics??

While I completely agree with the sentiment espoused here, we have no right to the private information that others possess. Nor does anyone have a duty to share consumer information that they have, no matter what we may happen to feel about it.

However, Spondoolies-Tech, you are better served not posting such things. There is no evidence either way that your statements are valid, but they certainly generate responses such as the above, and many companies fire their employees for such public commentary. It brings what may ultimately be unfounded attention, and fosters mistrust as Abracadabra noted.

Say whatever you wish, of course, but comments such as that certainly do you and your company no favours.

Spondoolies-Tech,  I have nothing against you or Bitmain, but when I see stuff like this mentioned, or when I hear Bitmain say stuff like "We know things but we can't say", it reinforces my view that ASIC manufacturing has become nothing more that a classic old boy's network/oligopoly/OPEC of bitcoin and it annoys the shit out of me.  A fantastic idea and technology that Satoshi had has been reduced to ASIC manufacturers careful treading, patting each other on the back, and refusing to whistleblow on each other.  To an outsider, it seems like a careful pact has been formed which excludes the community from information they should have.  It's the bitcoin community that placed you where you are now, and it's this same community's face you spit in when you refuse to share information you have regarding other ASIC manufacturers' business practices.

I only wish information flow regarding bitcoin would be as open as the blockchain.

Uses own chips?
Delivered miners?
Uses preorders?
On time?
Quality Issues?
Refund Issues?
Communication
Ethics
Size

Which of these rating categories do you disagree with, on what company? What evidence can you provide to substantiate a rating change?