This is quite a popular thread.
Anyone want to buy my baby jet?
Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 322. (Read 880479 times)
That "update" was a fake update written by a forum member, and not HashFast.
Quote
Our initial modules (Rev 0) had reliability issues due to the PCB layout (Printed Circuit Boards). We received Rev 2 PCBs this morning and they are currently being assembled.
Do you reckon they had the good sense to equip the PCBs with 4 PCIe power connectors this time around?
They'll likely be pushing about 600W into these boards...
I hope to god they learned their lesson from the likes of Bitfury. I also hope it's not 600 per board cause that would be stupidly ridiculous. I am expecting 300W per board though. If you look at this picture you'll notice two 8pin PCIE connectors - one on each side of the board.
https://hashfast.com/hashfast-announces-fastest-bitcoin-mining-chip-in-the-world/
click the first image and enlarge it to "full screen"
There was an update from them a while back saying that they "reopened the BJ (and Sierra?) cases installed upgraded power supplies", I don't see why they would have to do that if the power draw issue was resolved... or did they do that (and likely cost them more to open, replace and repack) so we could all put another upgrade board and not need to swap PSUs? So does that mean that they are kind enough to save us the money that we would have to spend to power 2 boards? Humm....
that post was a joke.. someone had modified a hashfast blog entry and put a humorous edit of it up... it was indeed confusing as it didn't state anywhere that it was a joke. usually at least one smiley is required
Quote
Our initial modules (Rev 0) had reliability issues due to the PCB layout (Printed Circuit Boards). We received Rev 2 PCBs this morning and they are currently being assembled.
Do you reckon they had the good sense to equip the PCBs with 4 PCIe power connectors this time around?
They'll likely be pushing about 600W into these boards...
I hope to god they learned their lesson from the likes of Bitfury. I also hope it's not 600 per board cause that would be stupidly ridiculous. I am expecting 300W per board though. If you look at this picture you'll notice two 8pin PCIE connectors - one on each side of the board.
https://hashfast.com/hashfast-announces-fastest-bitcoin-mining-chip-in-the-world/
click the first image and enlarge it to "full screen"
There was an update from them a while back saying that they "reopened the BJ (and Sierra?) cases installed upgraded power supplies", I don't see why they would have to do that if the power draw issue was resolved... or did they do that (and likely cost them more to open, replace and repack) so we could all put another upgrade board and not need to swap PSUs? So does that mean that they are kind enough to save us the money that we would have to spend to power 2 boards? Humm....
Quote
Our initial modules (Rev 0) had reliability issues due to the PCB layout (Printed Circuit Boards). We received Rev 2 PCBs this morning and they are currently being assembled.
Do you reckon they had the good sense to equip the PCBs with 4 PCIe power connectors this time around?
They'll likely be pushing about 600W into these boards...
I hope to god they learned their lesson from the likes of Bitfury. I also hope it's not 600 per board cause that would be stupidly ridiculous. I am expecting 300W per board though. If you look at this picture you'll notice two 8pin PCIE connectors - one on each side of the board.
https://hashfast.com/hashfast-announces-fastest-bitcoin-mining-chip-in-the-world/
click the first image and enlarge it to "full screen"
Look close, you'll see the extra 2 pins aren't plugged into anything
I wonder what the argument would be if the price of BTC had tanked?
Would anyone be complaining about refunds in USD?
Or would we all still want lower value BTC in return?
Would anyone be complaining about refunds in USD?
Or would we all still want lower value BTC in return?
I for one would ask for btc regardless. I have faith in the long term use and viability of bitcoin, thus the day to day vagaries of the btc/usd exchange rate is not as important. I think most people agree with me when I say that we bought these things to mine BTC for us, not USD.
You need to understand that bitcoin cannot be a viable currency with the extreme volatility it currently has. Bitcoin like gold is a very good store of wealth and can be used to purchase things but only by using a conversion rate to a stable currency. You cannot price things with such a volatile currency which is why nearly all bitcoin products are priced in USD. Bitcoin will not be used as a currency until it is much more stable and that is a long time from now.
That being said HF agreed to this retarded deal so it is up to them to go through with their original promise. It is possible they had NRE completely covered as they said and all the BTC was stored in a cold wallet which would be the only way they could possibly afford to refund in btc.
Do we have any reason to believe HF did not keep all btc payments tucked away in case of refunds?
Quote
Our initial modules (Rev 0) had reliability issues due to the PCB layout (Printed Circuit Boards). We received Rev 2 PCBs this morning and they are currently being assembled.
Do you reckon they had the good sense to equip the PCBs with 4 PCIe power connectors this time around?
They'll likely be pushing about 600W into these boards...
I hope to god they learned their lesson from the likes of Bitfury. I also hope it's not 600 per board cause that would be stupidly ridiculous. I am expecting 300W per board though. If you look at this picture you'll notice two 8pin PCIE connectors - one on each side of the board.
https://hashfast.com/hashfast-announces-fastest-bitcoin-mining-chip-in-the-world/
click the first image and enlarge it to "full screen"
I wonder what the argument would be if the price of BTC had tanked?
Would anyone be complaining about refunds in USD?
Or would we all still want lower value BTC in return?
Would anyone be complaining about refunds in USD?
Or would we all still want lower value BTC in return?
I for one would ask for btc regardless. I have faith in the long term use and viability of bitcoin, thus the day to day vagaries of the btc/usd exchange rate is not as important. I think most people agree with me when I say that we bought these things to mine BTC for us, not USD.
They have fixed the power consumption since that test, at least that's what I was told when I called them yesterday.
What makes you think that they will be using so much power? 422*.65*1.2=330W is the nominal power usage with 20% added on in case there is a bad die.
Quote from: https://hashfast.com/second-tests/
It’s doing 248Gh/s on only 2 dies! Half a Golden Nonce.
Consumption is around 300 watts total and 78C die temp.
Consumption is around 300 watts total and 78C die temp.
What makes you think that they will be using so much power? 422*.65*1.2=330W is the nominal power usage with 20% added on in case there is a bad die.
Quote
Our initial modules (Rev 0) had reliability issues due to the PCB layout (Printed Circuit Boards). We received Rev 2 PCBs this morning and they are currently being assembled.
Do you reckon they had the good sense to equip the PCBs with 4 PCIe power connectors this time around?
They'll likely be pushing about 600W into these boards...
Yes its edited with some text, otherwise not much different.
Interesting, it appears to me to be edited from the original version.
https://angel.co/hashfast
I doubt that would have paid for much, as the full cost of the mask, paying for all the hardware (not including all the things gone wrong, which would only add more to their costs), etc probably closer to 10x that, not to mention their operating costs, salaries etc. So the chances of them not having spent all (or almost most) of the BTCs by now is extremely slim. Even assuming they do have some amount of BTC left, how are they going to allocate that to various customers as I am not sure it would even be legal for them to do so. Are batch 1 customers going to demand that they take from their later customers' funds to pay off their earlier ones?
If so, what batch 1 customers are effectively saying is that HF should scam later batch customers to pay them 1st and that they are knowingly participating and in fact advocating or encouraging a Ponzi scheme. That would make them and HF joint scammers and I am pretty sure the law doesn't allow that either. If I remember correctly, i have read somewhere that some of the early beneficiaries of Ponzi schemes (Madoff?) had to return refunds they had been paid so that they could be divided fairly to all investors
Cedivad - why don't u go check with your lawyer?
Quote
Seed May 13, 2013 $630,000
Friends, Family, and Founders
Friends, Family, and Founders
I doubt that would have paid for much, as the full cost of the mask, paying for all the hardware (not including all the things gone wrong, which would only add more to their costs), etc probably closer to 10x that, not to mention their operating costs, salaries etc. So the chances of them not having spent all (or almost most) of the BTCs by now is extremely slim. Even assuming they do have some amount of BTC left, how are they going to allocate that to various customers as I am not sure it would even be legal for them to do so. Are batch 1 customers going to demand that they take from their later customers' funds to pay off their earlier ones?
If so, what batch 1 customers are effectively saying is that HF should scam later batch customers to pay them 1st and that they are knowingly participating and in fact advocating or encouraging a Ponzi scheme. That would make them and HF joint scammers and I am pretty sure the law doesn't allow that either. If I remember correctly, i have read somewhere that some of the early beneficiaries of Ponzi schemes (Madoff?) had to return refunds they had been paid so that they could be divided fairly to all investors
Cedivad - why don't u go check with your lawyer?
God iCeBreaker I'm so tired of reading your posts on alt accounts. Your history shows your first non-newbie post in classic iCeBreaker style pressuring KNC for thier fab info. Then it's off to support hashfast in every post thereafter. I mean who comes out of Newbie hell with a singular purpose like that other than a Hashfast shill.
The point is that Hashfast made promises to their customers prior to sale. Promises that I aim to hold them to.
The fact that a Hashfast representative posing as forum user is making these statements is pathetic.
I ordered from this company because of the full btc refund guarantee.
your reasoning doesnt matter. there are no BTCs to gather. and not enough $-funds to buy BTC at this price level. so no BTC refunds, if you like it or not.
They already said MPP chips were already ordered and were different than batch #2.
of course those chips are already ordered, anything else would be bad news. but those chips will arrive early february at best i guess and are limited in numbers. you cant just decide to get 800% MPP instead of 400%. learn to deal with realities.
Yeah, except no. It's not our f*ing problem what HF did with the money we paid or if they have that money or not or if there are any exchange rate fluctuations since then. You get exactly the amount and currency you paid (either BTC thru Bitpay or USD transfer).
According to this video, they are already applying resources towards the next nm fab chip (read < 28nm chips). I am officially not listening to anyone else that says that they can't honor their btc refund commitment.
Somebody posting something about auctioning off a mask.
https://angel.co/hashfast
I doubt that would have paid for much, as the full cost of the mask, paying for all the hardware (not including all the things gone wrong, which would only add more to their costs), etc probably closer to 10x that, not to mention their operating costs, salaries etc. So the chances of them not having spent all (or almost most) of the BTCs by now is extremely slim. Even assuming they do have some amount of BTC left, how are they going to allocate that to various customers as I am not sure it would even be legal for them to do so. Are batch 1 customers going to demand that they take from their later customers' funds to pay off their earlier ones?
If so, what batch 1 customers are effectively saying is that HF should scam later batch customers to pay them 1st and that they are knowingly participating and in fact advocating or encouraging a Ponzi scheme. That would make them and HF joint scammers and I am pretty sure the law doesn't allow that either. If I remember correctly, i have read somewhere that some of the early beneficiaries of Ponzi schemes (Madoff?) had to return refunds they had been paid so that they could be divided fairly to all investors
Cedivad - why don't u go check with your lawyer?
Quote
Seed May 13, 2013 $630,000
Friends, Family, and Founders
Friends, Family, and Founders
I doubt that would have paid for much, as the full cost of the mask, paying for all the hardware (not including all the things gone wrong, which would only add more to their costs), etc probably closer to 10x that, not to mention their operating costs, salaries etc. So the chances of them not having spent all (or almost most) of the BTCs by now is extremely slim. Even assuming they do have some amount of BTC left, how are they going to allocate that to various customers as I am not sure it would even be legal for them to do so. Are batch 1 customers going to demand that they take from their later customers' funds to pay off their earlier ones?
If so, what batch 1 customers are effectively saying is that HF should scam later batch customers to pay them 1st and that they are knowingly participating and in fact advocating or encouraging a Ponzi scheme. That would make them and HF joint scammers and I am pretty sure the law doesn't allow that either. If I remember correctly, i have read somewhere that some of the early beneficiaries of Ponzi schemes (Madoff?) had to return refunds they had been paid so that they could be divided fairly to all investors
Cedivad - why don't u go check with your lawyer?
According to this video, they are already applying resources towards the next nm fab chip (read < 28nm chips). I am officially not listening to anyone else that says that they can't honor their btc refund commitment.
Jump to: