I apologize for making the supposition that it may be possible for hashfast to mine with customer's equipment. We have no evidence that was the case. So under threat of legal action, i will modify any posts that supposedly allege that and leave only factual posts. I also encourage everyone else to do the same.
They were in fact mining without shipping customers equipment. That was confirmed by them.
Topic: Hashfast mining without shipping customer gear? (Read 6814 times)
We have internal test systems. A few of them, like the Baby Jet in our office that is part of the Eligius mining pool, are doing actual mining. This is to do a full, end to end, system test.
A much better test would involve mining the entire historical blockchain.That is, setup a pool server that feeds jobs with known blocks, and make sure you find them all.
This is no different than "real-world mining" except that you are doing it with historical data that miners would have gotten before each of those blocks.
Unrelated to this, I see no reason manufacturers shouldn't be mining mainnet as they do burnin as long as they are honest with the customers.
Where are our tracking numbers? 
I have my tracking number, but not from HashFast (FedEx called me to confirm some details on the shipment).I presume this means they've begun shipping, even if they haven't given out the tracking numbers yet...
@HashFast_CL
Where are our tracking numbers?
Where are our tracking numbers?
We are now to assume that you are hashing with our equipment since the 20th from this.
We have internal test systems. A few of them, like the Baby Jet in our office that is part of the Eligius mining pool, are doing actual mining. This is to do a full, end to end, system test. None of these test systems will be shipped to our customers. We will not use customer systems for our own purposes, especially mining.
Best,
-HashFast Community Liaison
Fair enough - locked.
I operate Eligius.
Since I'm not in the business of disclosing private datas, I'll simply point out that 1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX is NOT Hashfast.
-wk
Since I'm not in the business of disclosing private datas, I'll simply point out that 1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX is NOT Hashfast.
-wk
Thank you for clarifying.
I operate Eligius.
Since I'm not in the business of disclosing private datas, I'll simply point out that 1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX is NOT Hashfast.
-wk
Since I'm not in the business of disclosing private datas, I'll simply point out that 1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX is NOT Hashfast.
-wk
The user just added another 40TH/s.
Holy crap thats a lot of power on one account. I'd say they wouldn't be stupid enough to not just generate a few dozen wallet addresses to use with eligius instead of one big one.... but then I think about everything else they have done and said. Cocky and stupid, Hashfast!
F I want 150THs ....
F I want 150THs ....
The default for the antminers had btcguild, a bitman-pool (testnet?), and one other (50 something pool), but not Eligius. I had to put the entries for Eligius and BitMinter into my ants.
I would tend to agree. But keeping an eye out just because there are so many inconsistencies in hashfast's timeline.
It could be possible to be antminers but i very much doubt that. Their public batches were published right in these forums. No one single person bought that much from them. But again, thats publicly posted orders who know how much antminer sold privately.
Edit - Did the math and that would be around ~800 antminers.
It could be possible to be antminers but i very much doubt that. Their public batches were published right in these forums. No one single person bought that much from them. But again, thats publicly posted orders who know how much antminer sold privately.
Edit - Did the math and that would be around ~800 antminers.
Well... now that they have posted link to their test machine, I am willing to believe that 160TH/s address is not HF's, but some Antminer farm.
The test machine seems to be running at 700GH/s which if I run the numbers again... if we get the MPP on Feb 3rd, moves the loss to 16BTC/BJ. While that sucks, it is less than the 27 BTC I had calculated earlier at 500GH/s.
The test machine seems to be running at 700GH/s which if I run the numbers again... if we get the MPP on Feb 3rd, moves the loss to 16BTC/BJ. While that sucks, it is less than the 27 BTC I had calculated earlier at 500GH/s.
I see they have finally seen this thread? So yes is the answer to my question in the title. Still questionable as to who owns that large account. We will know when they ship.
https://twitter.com/HashFast/status/416810773290430464
https://twitter.com/HashFast/status/416810773290430464
If its not them, then its not them.
When the company says they are shipping on the 21st, then removes a video, then goes silent for another 6 days, what do you propose we do?
When the company says they are shipping on the 21st, then removes a video, then goes silent for another 6 days, what do you propose we do?
You forgot to add...
Use of shill accounts to deliberately deceive customers and squash decent.
Deliberate and frequent ninja ex post facto TOS changes.
Selling January equipment at October prices knowing full well they wouldn't deliver until the end of December.
Promising BTC refunds (jury still out on this one)
Anything I forget?
If its not them, then its not them.
When the company says they are shipping on the 21st, then removes a video, then goes silent for another 6 days, what do you propose we do?
When the company says they are shipping on the 21st, then removes a video, then goes silent for another 6 days, what do you propose we do?
Not sure buddy, I don't control what they do.. :/
If its not them, then its not them.
When the company says they are shipping on the 21st, then removes a video, then goes silent for another 6 days, what do you propose we do?
When the company says they are shipping on the 21st, then removes a video, then goes silent for another 6 days, what do you propose we do?
Gateway could of course dispel (or confirm) a lot of this speculation by posting an uncensored version of his cgminer photo from the visit.
Though I suppose if the address didn't match, people could just further speculate that they changed addresses.
Though I suppose if the address didn't match, people could just further speculate that they changed addresses.
Thats deff not them.. you guys seriously have nothing else to do, they are not mining with customers hardware.. but well no matter what I say or do it wont matter.. because ill get flamed, some other crap .. etc.. so well continue on guys.. not sure what I say to help..
Crap.. small edit.. while I was talking to a few people on Eligius pool.. a lot of these are in the wild now btw.. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pre-ship-again-sold-out-group-buy-5-315-btc-bitmain-antminer-180gh-300-units-383486
Looks like we've been victims of Hanlon's razor in regards to believing HashFast was mining with their customer's hardware. Turns out they've been unable to create a reliable PCB for the chip and are trying revision 2 now. Looks like they couldn't mine even if they wanted to... yet 
Wait so which lie should we believe? On the 20th the board was "performing marvelously".
https://twitter.com/HashFast/status/414178131482640384
Busted.
Looks like we've been victims of Hanlon's razor in regards to believing HashFast was mining with their customer's hardware. Turns out they've been unable to create a reliable PCB for the chip and are trying revision 2 now. Looks like they couldn't mine even if they wanted to... yet
Wait so which lie should we believe? On the 20th the board was "performing marvelously".
https://twitter.com/HashFast/status/414178131482640384
Looks like we've been victims of Hanlon's razor in regards to believing HashFast was mining with their customer's hardware. Turns out they've been unable to create a reliable PCB for the chip and are trying revision 2 now. Looks like they couldn't mine even if they wanted to... yet
That would be true if they had a habit of actually telling their customers the truth.
unfortunately...
Jump to: