Topic: [Guide] Dogie's Comprehensive Manufacturer Trustworthiness Guide [1st Feb 2016] - page 45. (Read 131506 times)

This makes no sense either.  Your other criterias should handle your woofing rigs scenario.  If they don't then your system is even more flawed than I thought.
Look, you've been testy before when provided feedback that's designed to help you become better.  Feedback isn't an attack on you, it's provided to help you.
You can do whatever you want, but your manufacturer ratings are not well thought out.

No I didn't, I just can't reply to 16x posts simultaneously. Age doesn't work because dogie's woofing rigs could sell a few units (resell, rebadge, small run of OEM integration), then sit afk for 12 months while building reputation. Come back all reputable, do a big scam.

You might not like it, but this is required to prevent abuse cases. Abuse cases mean scamming.

Because ASICMiner has put down $2-5M in money for those chips, not including the time, expertise and investment. Without differentiating between chip designers and OEMS, I could now start "dogie's woofing rigs", buy $2000 of A1's off the 2nd market and be just as trustworthy from that criteria as a company thats invested 1000x as much as me. $2000 would be a small price to pay for a scammer to run with $100,000.

Rockminer haven't invested the same crazy amounts of money in chips, so they can't be rewarded in that criteria. Don't think of it of a ding, think of it of a buff for people investment 7 figure sums in chip design and manufacture.

Don't post ratings in this thread, it creates fragments which will never get updated and are confusing.

BTCgarden don't use their own chips, so you can't make that up. They also don't have very minor hardware issues, they have pretty considerable DOA issues which they're refusing to acknowledge or address. My review unit for example, was half dead, and another reviewer's totally dead. Their support didn't attempt to fix it (replied one email from 6) or replace the components.

Don't start on avalon, everyone flames regardless of what I do with that company. At the moment they are excluded because they're not active. SB are the closest you'll get to Avlaon.

A better criteria than "size" is "age".
BTW, you ignored the actual point of the criticism, which is the irrelevance of "own chips"

I'm not going to repeat myself for the 4th time about size because you haven't bothered to read the other posts before posting. Size - if you want to call it size or consistency or time on the market or whatever - is a required metric to prevent it being gamed by a brand new company which would rock up with a perfect score.

As i said, the "own chips" criteria makes no sense.
There is no point in penalizing for not manufacturing own chips.
It is like penalizing Compaq for not being Intel, it is absolutely unrelated and irrelevant to the evaluation of the trustworthiness of a company.

If the goal of this ranking is to evaluate the trustworthiness of the companies, what really matters is their relationship with the customers, their business ethics and efficiency, and penalizing practices that potentially could harm the shareholders and their customers, example:
Do they deliver what they promise? (Underdeliver, penalize. Overdeliver, extra points)
Do they bait and switch?
Do they deliver and ship orders on time?
Do they ask for preorders? (Not a disqualifying point, but undesirable, it should get penalized)
Did they miss the deadline for preorder delivery? (This should be penalized doubly per day)
Do they honor the warranties or insurances?
Do they refund to their customers?
Are they reachable for support?
Are they reachable in real life? (Telephone, Personal visit, postal mail)
Are their facilities real or are they just paper companies?
Are their identities publicly known?

THAT is relevant.

You should move away from ambiguous criteria that are hard to quantify objectively and/or are irrelevant to evaluate trustworthiness.
The "size" of a company is actually irrelevant. If a small startup deliver what they promise, on time, and they can effectively keep up with demand, there is no point in penalizing them.
Also, unless all the companies are public, you can't really measure up their "size".

If you want to make an objective and fair comparison of these companies, you will have to take an extra effort to think it through. Subjective impressions and arbitrary criteria are useless.
Evaluate by how they perform, not on how it looks.
And evaluate a dish by its taste, not on their cooking techniques.
And what makes restaurants to earn their Michelin stars is one key criteria: CONSISTENCY.
Are they consistent in the quality of service? What's the ratio of happy customers and pissed ones? How often do they piss their customers?

These ratings don't make sense.  Case and point, ASICMiner is #1, but no longer ships any miners, only chips.  However, you ding a company like RockMiner with 1/10 on using own chips BECAUSE they use ASICMiner chips, your #1 rated company...  

BTW, ASICMiner should be #1, but why ding other companies who use their chips?
this is flawed.

I still think btcgardens rating is way too low.

Here's how I would rate them:

BTCGarden (jimmothy rating)

Product lines:                                                                                                                            Company Site | Bitcointalk Thread AMV1

___________________________________________________________
Rating: 88	Uses own chips? Delivered miners? Uses preorders?	Mixed Yes No	8/10 10/10 20/20	On time? Quality Issues? Refund Issues?	Yes Very Minor No	10/10 8/10 10/10	Communication Ethics Size	Good F Large	7/10 8/10 7/10

Last Score: 73	Integrator of ASICMiner's chips. Very few problems with DOA rates and communication.
___________________________________________________________	_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ __

___________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ __

Also did you forget avalon?

That's not what the delivered criteria is for. They delivered a miner. It sucked, that's why they get 1/10 elsewhere, and one of the lowest ratings of any company.

There is no evidence of a working 1.2 THs that has not failed.  Can you point me to one?

Source?

Exact valuation aside, I am certain nobody will contest that Bitfury is probably the biggest player in the asic mining industry.

They have easily produced the most hashpower and have enormous profits.

They also seem to be holding the highest percentage of the network.

They have been the nearly uncontested leader in W/GH right till the Neptune, even though they were on 55nm all the time.

Thats not how a valuation works 0_o

Source?

You do know that BitFury recently raised $20m on a valuation of $250m, and is thus a $270m valuation company - the largest bitcoin company ever..!  and that they're considering an IPO early next year!

BitFury also has the largest private mine of any company.  Probably more than 20 PH already.   And they claim to be currently powering 40% of the bitcoin mining network (140 PH, thus 40% is 56 PH).  That includes both chips they've sold, AND their own private mine.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-mining-giant-bitfury-announces-20-million-funding-round/

-- Jez

Everyone with a farm receives a deduction for a farm, including bitmain (soon).

Why then has bitfury and asicminer received deductions in ethics?

Technically AM's farm was mining for the public.

Dont get me wrong. I find your guide is very helpful and interesting. Thanks for doing it.

Black Arrow: That's interesting that they msged you because they completely ignore every single one of us, customers. They do not answer to tickets and they do not reply on forum. Please check up Black Arrow's thread to see the mess. They have no consideration for any of us whatsoever. The director seem to have been doing his best to cover up any details about his company and negative information about him.

If you don't believe us please read this article. If it is the same person he already has a history of computer fraud on massive scale!
http://web.archive.org/web/20130615084304/http://www.gov.ro/comunicat-de-presa__l1a15869.html

Translation:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20130615084304%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.ro%2Fcomunicat-de-presa__l1a15869.html&edit-text=

And here is the information about Black Arrow. Their details and address and also director's details. It's a person with exactly the same name:
He is Romanian who moved to UK. His email address is [email protected]

Mr Alexandru Ion Sovu
24 Branksome Court
Prospect Street, Reading
RGI 7XR
Berskshire, UK

All paperwork info can be found in the links below:
http://www.kiwi.nz/blackarrow/PS300015776549_01.pdf
http://www.kiwi.nz/blackarrow/

I like the new layout of this thread and updated information.  Keep it updated and current please