Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 500. (Read 880816 times)

It is an interesting idea and hopefully one that HF is at least considering.   Based on the news, blogs, and mockups the BabyJet does seem to be taking a back seat to the Sierra anyways.   Going forward (Jan onward) with rising and falling $/GH prices a 400 GH/s unit is less interesting than a 1.2 TH one so I don't see the BabyJet being a large seller in 2014.

It is almost a certainty that HashFast will need to pay out the MPP so each BabyJet orders means 1 to 4 more processing boards at some point in the future.  Even a halfway step of upgrading all Babyjet orders to Sierra "chassis" and including 2 processing boards, the first one paid for and the second one being a "down payment" on the MPP would put customers in a better situation.

Of course Hashfast doesn't HAVE to do any of this they can just stick to the terms of service but I am pretty sure they are smart enough to know that 2014 sales depend heavily on how they "make it right" for batch 1 and 2 customers.   KNC for example despite some missteps probably will have no issue lining up batch 3, 4, 5, 20 sales in 2014.  Then again a lot comes down to how many chips Hashfast will have.  They have 550 batch 1 orders + 500 more for Icedrill project.   Not sure if the Nov sales are part of the first "batch" of chips from the fab or not.  What they can do may come down to how many chips they will be receiving from TSMC in the next week.  If it is 20,000 chips they they have a lot of options.  If it is 4,000 chips and it needs to cover batch 2 orders as well, then there is a lot less they can pull off.

I've already asked that, on several times, and they always replied no. The only "maybe" i got was when i met John in person at the conference, but even if i tried, he never followed me up on that.

Well, I was just not suggesting to ship the BJs into sierras chasis, I suggest shipping as sierras complete units that are expected to be shipped in late november. Back in time when they made the "3 days sale" you could get a sierra with x3 hasing power than a BJ at the same price !

But when I complained about this and some customers try to upgrade or change their BJ into a sierra unit, HF said a clear NO, saying that there was a month between those batches, more than enough time for a BJ to catch the sierra in profit terms.

Now that the gap between the two batches seems to be really small, it makes no sense to ship the first batch customers a babyjet.
- The chip and boards are the same
- The power supply is the same
- The cooling solution I suppose is also the same
- The controller is the same

The only difference is the case, which HF has not yet bought or produced for the BJ. Indeed there is still no render about it, just for the sierra. So why no purchase a bunch of server racks cases and make the things right HF ? This way if we roi you wont have to execute the MPP.

Give the first batch customers a compensation for the delay, reward them for going first into this and compensate them for the error you made by offering the sierra units one month later and no saying a word in advance or giving them the chance to upgrade their orders.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316945.new#new
^ do we need my money after this post?

That is not correct or at least not using current terminology.  Substrate is not part of the wafer fabrication process it comes afterwards. The raw silicon in this case is produced by TSMC.  The will deliver complete wafers.  That process according to Hashfast began roughly  weeks ago and is (per their words) on track for end of month.  A packaging house will take the complete wafers, cut them into individual dies.   The dies as bonded to a the substrate and optionally a metal lid (heat spreader is attached).  



From HashFast mockup image.

The shiny metal part in the middle is the die made from silicon it is the part which comes from the fab (TSMC).
The green part is the substate it has nothing to do with the raw silicon production and is the last step in microprocessor construcion.
The part with the logo is the lid.  It protects the die from physical damage and helps to distribute the heat.



Older style microprocessor.  Die (metal part) & substrate (green part).  There is no package lid so the die is vulnerable to physical damage.  More than one Athlon XP owner crushed the die attaching the heatsink.


Newer style microprocessor.  The chip on the left is how it is delivered.  The package lid hides most of the die and subtrate but if you remove it, it looks very similar underneath.

HF will be late.  They already stated being two weeks late.  However silicon fabrication is 4-6 weeks so stating they are at the beginning of production is not correct.  Hashfast wouldn't be responsible for supplying raw wafers.  They supplied specs to the foundry.  The foundry (TSMC) will deliver final fabricated wafers.   They are responsible for everything between tapeout and final wafers.  No customer (including HashFast) has any control or input on how the foundry does their work.

  

LOL no kidding eh!  If you're not bullish on BTC what in the fuck are you doing mining!!

Did you suspect it was going to fall?  If so did you sell your coins?

I like the idea of shipping Baby Jets in Sierra chassis (with one PSU) because it's now likely they will need at least two additional MPP mini-boards to achieve zero/positive ROI.

If this is cost prohibitive, HashFast could offer the Sierra chassis option as a paid upgrade.

Yes the Dec 31 clause was added later. I believe it happened on August 16. So there are some customers in Batch 1 that agreed to the old terms, and some that agreed to the new terms. They did not change the revision of the terms of sale either. Both were labeled 'HASHFAST ONLINE TERMS OF SALE Ver. 1.B – Revised August 8, 2013'

I wrote about it here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2949502

And a side-by-side diff here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3212178

I spoke to a lawyer, showed him the terms of sale and here is what he said:

- Since you had to agree to the terms by checking a box when you purchased they are enforceable.

- Section 3a is the important part. It says:
"(a) Guaranteed Baby Jet Delivery Dates – Batch 1. All of the 550 Baby Jet units from Hashfast’s first production batch are guaranteed for delivery by December 31, 2013. If Buyer ordered one or more units of such Baby Jets, and Hashfast does not deliver such units by that date, then Buyer may cancel the undelivered portion of the order at Buyer’s request and Hashfast will refund the payment for the units that Buyer purchased but did not receive and cancelled. This cancellation and refund is Buyer’s sole and exclusive remedy for Hashfast failing to deliver by the December 31, 2013 guaranteed delivery date. To avail itself of this remedy, Buyer must cancel the order before such unit(s) are delivered by Hashfast, and in any case before March 31, 2014."

The interesting part is it does NOT say that you can not cancel an order before Dec 31st! It just says if HF does not deliver by then your remedy in that situation is cancellation and a refund. It does not say anything about the buyer requesting a cancellation BEFORE then!

- Later on in section 3f it says: "No order or any part thereof may be rescheduled or cancelled without Hashfast’ prior written consent except for cancellations permitted under this Section 3." This may be taken to mean "no cancellations" but it is unclear as it is buried in the section regarding a customer refusing delivery or contesting a shipment.

- The Dec 31 deadline contradicts HashFast's advertising material, direct e-mails, and blog posts which repeatedly announced a Oct 20-30 ship date.

- In the event of any ambiguity regarding the expected ship date, the legal system must allow cancellation of the order. From the lawyer: "There is a concept of law wherein if someone provides a contract that has an ambiguous term then that term is construed against the entity providing the contract." In the lawyers opinion, since the purchase agreement, namely section 3a, is ambiguous, then the courts should be find in favor of the customer and allow cancellations.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hashfast-endorsement-270363


Could you explain which of these two statements made by you is actually the correct one?  

So basically at the beginning you believed they had the talent to do it but now it's delayed it's to be expected?  You make a positive assertion that you believe they can do something then when they don't you tell people to grow up a delay is expected?  You wonder why people question you?

You were paid to endorse their product, the company you endorsed failed to meet their stated timeline, you and HF deserve all the ire that is directed at you because YOU guys brought it on yourselves.

When oh when for the love of god will you fucking nerds stop listening to these godamn manufacture's that only want you to fund their start up for 0% equity!

This is what I said like 3 times. They should ship sierras instead of BJs to compensate all this delays and the offers they made in the past and so we may roi and they dont have to execute the MPP in a future

Correct. I would encourage everyone to call and demand compensation for the delay. Don't let them just compensate you, tell them to compensate all of us as I did.

Yeah like we all knew BTC was going to double.

Just think of all the coins you'd have if you had bought bitcoins instead of pre-orders.

I have 12 BJ orders, also 12 Upgrades. Up until 4 days ago, I kept getting told that we were on schedule.. Then everyone went silent until this morning with the bad news.

Maybe because I don't feel like acting like a child like you and erdouchen? Notice how erdouchen whines  when I enter the KNC thread but he has no  problem coming in here when he wants to troll.

I'm just as upset as you guys as I have 9 BJ's on order but there's nothing I can do about it. In fact its expected. Grow up.

Haha.. no really, think about it: assuming the MPP kicks in and the overall return is exactly what was covered by the MPP, this would mean one pays $ 4560 to get $ 2760 back after more than 3 months?

damn, you were in on BFL as well.

I check this thread every once in a while, mainly to wonder why an up and coming company would hire cypherdouche, official bitwhore for Half-Fast.

I skipped the last couple of pages, in an effort to pose one quick question, posed in the midst of the following essay.

In the mid 1990's, I worked for AT&T, hired just before the Lucent spinoff.
I worked in Reading, PA, in their Micro-Electronic [ME] manufacturing sector. The department I worked in dealt directly with Substrates.
IT IS THE VERY FIRST STEP IN THE PRODUCTION OF AN INTEGRATED CIRCUIT.
We used sophisticated grinders to ensure they were all of a uniform thickness.
The substrates were then polished to the typical mirror dark gray mirror finish that comes to mind.

The substrates were shipped to other departments at the facility. I worked mostly with 3.5" and 5 inch wafers. Weeks later, the wafers would emerge from their reactors, having the different conductive, insulative and semi-conductive layers placed upon 'my' substrate. In my mind, 4 to 6 weeks seems to resonate.
(in the late 90's I changed course into the fiber optic manufacturing industry and have since lost touch with any manufacturing process enhancements for ICs)
We would then take delivery of the wafers and grind the remaining substrate off of the 'bottom' of the wafer down to scant microns above the etchings from weeks prior.

Let's say that the time to production has been halved in the past 20 years.
It doesn't change the fact that HF is only in early chip production.

So, I gotta know, is this an effect of poor planning, poor engineering or some karmic manifestation for the douchebaggery that was undertaken in the name of Half-Fast?

The first of the KnC miners were a few days late.
I would think that Hal-Fast will be much slower than KnC.