I would not exclude the possibility of Bitcoin hashing kernel becoming one of the benchmark test structures used in the IC fabrication industry. As such they could be then manufactured in small quantities essentially for free.
This is an interesting conjecture. The more you think about the character and i/o properties of the hashing kernel... 
Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 583. (Read 880816 times)
What sort of plan do you have in place to protect the bitcoin network as a whole when you will be shipping devices this powerful? Just to put things in perspective- if you were to have these chips finalized today, a single 3000 chip reel of them would represent 1200 TH of hash power, which is nearly 500% of what the entire bitcoin network is today. Will you be offering bulk chips for sale in these sorts of quantities, or will you be limiting your sales?
Of course I realize that we're going to be a helluva lot higher than 250TH come october, but even if the network were to hit 1000 TH by then, a single reel of chips would *still* be enough to hold more than 51% of the hash power.
Of course I realize that we're going to be a helluva lot higher than 250TH come october, but even if the network were to hit 1000 TH by then, a single reel of chips would *still* be enough to hold more than 51% of the hash power.
HashFast is absolutely committed to promoting the bitcoin and protecting the BTC ecosystem and will work towards ensuring that no one entity controls more than 50%.
John Skrodenis
HashFast.com
This is what is probably the most important thing what we are looking for. There should be restrictions how much units can one customer buy. Therefore many more people can buy hardware. Also there are other "fair play" methods if you understand the psychology
The difference between trying to develop a chip in Silicon Valley, v.s. trying to design a chip from the middle of Kansas.
+1 
The difference between trying to develop a chip in Silicon Valley, v.s. trying to design a chip from the middle of Kansas.
Because you read an one-page press-release and you've assumed that it is a true and complete description of the underlying business relationship and an executive summary of the non-public business contract between two entities not traded on exchange and not subject to the disclosure regulations.
*cringe*
Technically this one-page letter was an exact equivalent of bitfury making an one-line post "reserved" under the opening posts anouncing the products based on his chips.
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-the-Word-An
Sorry, but I could not resist
well I live in the bay area and im surprised that this hasn't happened sooner where lots of people from the bay area/silicon valley get together to build a chip, we have some of the top developers here and I personally know quite a few at both nvidia, amd and intel. So yea its possible to get something powerful out and with the the increase in devices coming out and making the diff rise the next step in chip tech is in the ranges of 100Gh/s or higher per chip in order to stay competitive.
Your 333mh/s usb stick might pay off in 170 days.. but I have a feeling with avalon chips and other stuff coming out aug/sept that well if you dont have something big your roi is going to be hard to make.
Of course lots of big dogs on this forum who have the cash to buy the bigger devices and got lucky to order early but the next few months will be quite interesting , and maybe next year 1Th/s is the norm ...
just my 2 cents..
as for these guys we will see
Your 333mh/s usb stick might pay off in 170 days.. but I have a feeling with avalon chips and other stuff coming out aug/sept that well if you dont have something big your roi is going to be hard to make.
Of course lots of big dogs on this forum who have the cash to buy the bigger devices and got lucky to order early but the next few months will be quite interesting , and maybe next year 1Th/s is the norm ...
just my 2 cents..
as for these guys we will see
Because you read an one-page press-release and you've assumed that it is a true and complete description of the underlying business relationship and an executive summary of the non-public business contract between two entities not traded on exchange and not subject to the disclosure regulations.
*cringe*
Technically this one-page letter was an exact equivalent of bitfury making an one-line post "reserved" under the opening posts anouncing the products based on his chips.
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-the-Word-An
subscriped
What sort of plan do you have in place to protect the bitcoin network as a whole when you will be shipping devices this powerful? Just to put things in perspective- if you were to have these chips finalized today, a single 3000 chip reel of them would represent 1200 TH of hash power, which is nearly 500% of what the entire bitcoin network is today. Will you be offering bulk chips for sale in these sorts of quantities, or will you be limiting your sales?
Of course I realize that we're going to be a helluva lot higher than 250TH come october, but even if the network were to hit 1000 TH by then, a single reel of chips would *still* be enough to hold more than 51% of the hash power.
Of course I realize that we're going to be a helluva lot higher than 250TH come october, but even if the network were to hit 1000 TH by then, a single reel of chips would *still* be enough to hold more than 51% of the hash power.
HashFast is absolutely committed to promoting the bitcoin and protecting the BTC ecosystem and will work towards ensuring that no one entity controls more than 50%.
John Skrodenis
HashFast.com
What sort of plan do you have in place to protect the bitcoin network as a whole when you will be shipping devices this powerful? Just to put things in perspective- if you were to have these chips finalized today, a single 3000 chip reel of them would represent 1200 TH of hash power, which is nearly 500% of what the entire bitcoin network is today. Will you be offering bulk chips for sale in these sorts of quantities, or will you be limiting your sales?
Of course I realize that we're going to be a helluva lot higher than 250TH come october, but even if the network were to hit 1000 TH by then, a single reel of chips would *still* be enough to hold more than 51% of the hash power.
Of course I realize that we're going to be a helluva lot higher than 250TH come october, but even if the network were to hit 1000 TH by then, a single reel of chips would *still* be enough to hold more than 51% of the hash power.
All these companies between tens of thousands (130nm) to million (28nm) on ASIC designs, I think we may see a glut of chips by the end of the year. Hashrate and difficulty may go completely insane, with all these chips chasing the same $300k/day.
On the other hand, if bitcoin went up to $1000, instead of $100, then we're looking at $3 mill.
Hopefully with these companies making huge investments in bitcoin tech, we can see people making bigger investments in promoting the use and therefore increase in value in bitcoin. We should be seeing ads on TV, having people try to get local businesses around the country hooked up and using the currency. In theory, they should be all for it because they won't have to pay swipe fees, which can add up.
But at the rate things are going, making any profit from mining is going to require a much higher price for btc, or much cheaper hardware.
I do have to laugh at all the people trying to sell avalon clones for $20k, though.
On the other hand, if bitcoin went up to $1000, instead of $100, then we're looking at $3 mill.
Hopefully with these companies making huge investments in bitcoin tech, we can see people making bigger investments in promoting the use and therefore increase in value in bitcoin. We should be seeing ads on TV, having people try to get local businesses around the country hooked up and using the currency. In theory, they should be all for it because they won't have to pay swipe fees, which can add up.
But at the rate things are going, making any profit from mining is going to require a much higher price for btc, or much cheaper hardware.
I do have to laugh at all the people trying to sell avalon clones for $20k, though.
+1 Keep saying, the real profit to be made is in early adoption of Bitcoin as a payment means and increasing it's accessibility to the population at large.
Hopefully with these companies making huge investments in bitcoin tech, we can see people making bigger investments in promoting the use and therefore increase in value in bitcoin. We should be seeing ads on TV, having people try to get local businesses around the country hooked up and using the currency. In theory, they should be all for it because they won't have to pay swipe fees, which can add up.
We agree with you Ytterbium.
Our goals are certainly in alignment with the promotion of BTC overall, and we will be working the press on this front. (my job)
Cheers,
John
All these companies between tens of thousands (130nm) to million (28nm) on ASIC designs, I think we may see a glut of chips by the end of the year. Hashrate and difficulty may go completely insane, with all these chips chasing the same $300k/day.
On the other hand, if bitcoin went up to $1000, instead of $100, then we're looking at $3 mill.
Hopefully with these companies making huge investments in bitcoin tech, we can see people making bigger investments in promoting the use and therefore increase in value in bitcoin. We should be seeing ads on TV, having people try to get local businesses around the country hooked up and using the currency. In theory, they should be all for it because they won't have to pay swipe fees, which can add up.
But at the rate things are going, making any profit from mining is going to require a much higher price for btc, or much cheaper hardware.
I do have to laugh at all the people trying to sell avalon clones for $20k, though.
On the other hand, if bitcoin went up to $1000, instead of $100, then we're looking at $3 mill.
Hopefully with these companies making huge investments in bitcoin tech, we can see people making bigger investments in promoting the use and therefore increase in value in bitcoin. We should be seeing ads on TV, having people try to get local businesses around the country hooked up and using the currency. In theory, they should be all for it because they won't have to pay swipe fees, which can add up.
But at the rate things are going, making any profit from mining is going to require a much higher price for btc, or much cheaper hardware.
I do have to laugh at all the people trying to sell avalon clones for $20k, though.
Have Hashfast not approached Uniquity and paid them for their expertise in creating a chip for and alongside Hashfast's own design team? 28nm chip design runs into the millions. How much more grounded would you like me to be? Why by your own terminology do you suggest my comments border on the absurd??On the other hand, I know that you (perhaps voluntarily) run public relations for KnC (a competitor), so in truthfullness I wouldn't expect anything else from you.
Technically this one-page letter was an exact equivalent of bitfury making an one-line post "reserved" under the opening posts anouncing the products based on his chips.
You're nuts. That's total nonsense!
You're having conversations in your head, or at the very least are making a lot of unfounded assumptions!!
I haven't read a one page press release and assumed anything. I did some research on Simon, seeing as in the original thread he purposely gave his name as his forum nic. I've actually read his pier reviewed journal on improving the Bitcoin protocol, have you? No. Judging by the majority of the posts in that thread and this it's clear few if any have put two and two together and bothered to look into the guys's current and past positions.
When the hell did you come to the false conclusion I'm currently employed by KnC, let alone give me an actual job description?!
Sounds like you've an axe to grind, I'd rather you keep well away, thanks...
I sent an email to Uniquify (info@) today, asking if Mr. Bob Smith can confirm the letter in the OP.
I just received the answer that he does indeed confirm authorship.
So, most likely, NOT scam.
I just received the answer that he does indeed confirm authorship.
So, most likely, NOT scam.
Hi Qwk,
If your real name starts with 'B,' your email was forwarded to me this morning by Bob. I will hit you up on that email now.
Thanks for posting this.
Cheers,
John Skrodenis
HashFast.com
Have Hashfast not approached Uniquity and paid them for their expertise in creating a chip for and alongside Hashfast's own design team? 28nm chip design runs into the millions. How much more grounded would you like me to be? Why by your own terminology do you suggest my comments border on the absurd??On the other hand, I know that you (perhaps voluntarily) run public relations for KnC (a competitor), so in truthfullness I wouldn't expect anything else from you.
Technically this one-page letter was an exact equivalent of bitfury making a
Edit: It doesn't merit a separate post, but I want to preserve the hot response against possible future changes or deletions a la reeses.
You're nuts. That's total nonsense!
You're having conversations in your head, or at the very least are making a lot of unfounded assumptions!!
I haven't read a one page press release and assumed anything. I did some research on Simon, seeing as in the original thread he purposely gave his name as his forum nic. I've actually read his pier reviewed journal on improving the Bitcoin protocol, have you? No. Judging by the majority of the posts in that thread and this it's clear few if any have put two and two together and bothered to look into the guys's current and past positions.
When the hell did you come to the false conclusion I'm currently employed by KnC, let alone give me an actual job description?!
Sounds like you've an axe to grind, I'd rather you keep well away, thanks...
Edit2: Thank you very much. Hopefully I fixed it and didn't make another mistake.You're having conversations in your head, or at the very least are making a lot of unfounded assumptions!!
I haven't read a one page press release and assumed anything. I did some research on Simon, seeing as in the original thread he purposely gave his name as his forum nic. I've actually read his pier reviewed journal on improving the Bitcoin protocol, have you? No. Judging by the majority of the posts in that thread and this it's clear few if any have put two and two together and bothered to look into the guys's current and past positions.
When the hell did you come to the false conclusion I'm currently employed by KnC, let alone give me an actual job description?!
Sounds like you've an axe to grind, I'd rather you keep well away, thanks...
Edit3: I'm not entering into the thread-bumping games with the PR reps. I'll acknowledge the replies by editing my most recent post, which just bolds the thread without bumping it to the top. Thanks.
Edit4: Ha, ha. At the time of this quote reeses had previous post early in April and a total of 2 posts this year. We are missing you, dude!
Edit: It doesn't merit a separate post, but I want to preserve the hot response against possible future changes or deletions a la reeses.
My ears were burning.
Not to mention a huge financial risk for any single private entity.
Tape out to fab in 30ish days on 28nm??? - Nice dream unless the fab was booked 5 months ago.
The non-sequitur-s like above keep popping up on this forum. But repetition doesn't make them true.For the organization like Uniquify, which for years was and is engaged in the IC development:
1) fab could have been booked 5 years ago with a long-term contract
2) alternative product lines could be a financial-risk-reduction strategy
3) the mask-making costs could be slipped into cracks in other ongoing projects
4) Bitcoin hashers are extremely repetitive, self-testing, fully-observable, among the few logic circuits where even the reset signal is not required, could be made without any licensing or intellectual property expenses. As such the costs could be shared between the design house and the fab with the suitable agreement about sharing the results of tests
5) I would not exclude the possibility of Bitcoin hashing kernel becoming one of the benchmark test structures used in the IC fabrication industry. As such they could be then manufactured in small quantities essentially for free.
So yeah, please speculate, but keep it grounded.
Have Hashfast not approached Uniquity and paid them for their expertise in creating a chip for and alongside Hashfast's own design team? 28nm chip design runs into the millions. How much more grounded would you like me to be? Why by your own terminology do you suggest my comments border on the absurd?? Not to mention a huge financial risk for any single private entity.
Tape out to fab in 30ish days on 28nm??? - Nice dream unless the fab was booked 5 months ago.
The non-sequitur-s like above keep popping up on this forum. But repetition doesn't make them true.For the organization like Uniquify, which for years was and is engaged in the IC development:
1) fab could have been booked 5 years ago with a long-term contract
2) alternative product lines could be a financial-risk-reduction strategy
3) the mask-making costs could be slipped into cracks in other ongoing projects
4) Bitcoin hashers are extremely repetitive, self-testing, fully-observable, among the few logic circuits where even the reset signal is not required, could be made without any licensing or intellectual property expenses. As such the costs could be shared between the design house and the fab with the suitable agreement about sharing the results of tests
5) I would not exclude the possibility of Bitcoin hashing kernel becoming one of the benchmark test structures used in the IC fabrication industry. As such they could be then manufactured in small quantities essentially for free.
So yeah, please speculate, but keep it grounded.
How low can you go on the power consumption and $/GH?
I sent an email to Uniquify (info@) today, asking if Mr. Bob Smith can confirm the letter in the OP.
I just received the answer that he does indeed confirm authorship.
So, most likely, NOT scam.
While it's well worth it to check everything as a matter of course, it's not too likely that a principal who has produced widely read, well-cited research would forge a letter and put that forgery out on the internet. I just received the answer that he does indeed confirm authorship.
So, most likely, NOT scam.
Jump to: