Topic: Have you ordered your HashFast Baby Jet yet? - page 2. (Read 5000 times)

?

?

That's not true. All that really matters is die size.  Whether you have 1 12x12mm chip, or 4 6x6mm chips, or 8 3x3mm chips, the amount of silicon used is the same.  In fact, it's actually slightly cheaper because you have less 'white space' around the edge of the wafer (remember, a wafer is a circular shape.  If you have a smaller chip, you use less of the wafer)

The other thing is the power draw.  More power in a die means more cooling and it becomes more difficult/complex.  Since KnC's chips are going to use less power per chip you can use a cheaper cooling system (in this case fans v.s. water cooling.)

It's possible HF's chip is actually more space efficient if they did a 'hand routed' design over a "standard cell" (which KnC used). If that's the case then production costs per chip may be lower.

However, all this talk about how HF's chip is soooo much more efficient then KnC's is a bit ridiculous. The package size doesn't tell you anything about the size of the chip. Unless you have insider information you have no way of knowing how efficient their chips are.

To be honest, it sounds kind of insane, total certainty about something you can't possibly know.  No one will know how big their die is until chips are released and someone actually cracks one open to get a look at the actual silicon.

Anyway, it doesn't even matter.  All that matters is what they charge for the chip.  If it costs HF $1/Gh/s and they sell it for $14, and it costs KnC $2/Gh/s and they sell it for $10, then KnC is a better deal .

Given HF's "miner protection plan" the chips must cost less then $2.8/Gh/s.

A lot of people seem really confused about the difference between the profits of the company making the chip and the profits of the actual customer.  Production cost won't make any difference at all until all the profits are wrung out and people are selling chips close to their production cost. (And by that time they'll be able to refine their design a couple of times as well)


I think it's possible they might be on time, it really depends on the company that's putting together the actual boxes. It's going to be much more of a challenge for them then KnC. With the Miner protection plan it's an OK deal I guess. At this point I still think LABCOIN shares are the best deal at the moment.

PaTrolling?

Pahahahahahahahahaa

You guys do realize that PayPal will hold/cancel your account for anythng btc related that they catch wind of it?

mark my words could even be longer than 13 months or disappear totally into thin air

Nice gamble man.
Have fun with them in december mining few bitcoins a day.

no way.

blow me, BTC only payments haha, maybe if it had paypal I would take a risk free gamble.

Could end up like BFL 13 months later

you've made the right choice.

Well staying back on topic, I just made an order for 12 Baby Jets with next day air. I hope to get them on time. I also have two ASIC SC Single pre-orders from 13 months ago from BFL. I hope to get them in 2 more weeks ™

that's the thing.

b/c HF is going to be getting 400gh/s out of 1 chip vs. KNC needing 4 chips, right there, HF is going to have a significant production cost advantage.  so even if KNC does offer a MPP, the cost advantage will eventually grind them down.

in addition, it appears there is even further efficiency advantages that HF suspects b/c of the package size coming out of KNC.  don't ask me to go into details b/c i don't fully understand it but am digging for more info as we speak.

Well it's in black and white, I posted the legality on the issue. I'm tired of going through it, but if you want to PM me over it go ahead, anything but dragging it through someone else's thread. I don't believe you consciously realised the legality of the issue, although you have admitted you understood it to be morally inexcusable.

I agree minor protection is something other companies should consider, but perhaps KnC may lead with enough time for ROI, in dollars at least, as they are priced not to be a concern within a reasonable timeframe. Will have to wait and see.

I disagree about payment choice and accountability, this is the precise point in time that you demand the security in payments you wish a company to provide. I don't doubt Hashfast are real, and have a chip in mind, what I'm concerned about, and have constantly raised issue with irrespective of the company, and including KnC, is treating customers funds like a casino. There's absolutely no reason for it to be that way, we shouldn't be expected to 'hand our balls over' when it's completely unnecessary so a company can gamble on whether they can bring a product to market. It's a choice w.r.t. accountability and recourse. Say there's a catastrophic failure, or delay beyond a reasonable timeframe, and they have to refund as promised in January, only monies have been spent, where's the cash coming for the refund if no third party is willing to accept liability? It's not, no matter how pretty the ribbons.

Unquestionable superior technology? It's the same 28nm kid, and if it's late, it's late, only realistically it's now recently been reworded as only an 'anticipated' date with no refund until which point in time refunds are untenable. That's not me kissing one co's ass over another, that's taking a step back and observing the situation from a logical standpoint.

How many fucking topics do we need for HashFast?

actually not quite.  

yes, i was using your line (for a second time ) purposely but thought you meant something different.

what i am saying is that according to Bitcoinorama, even if some great new company appears that unquestionably has a superior technology that is likely to enable them to take over the market, as long as KNC hasn't done anything illegal to deceive, misportray, or misrepresent their product, you are ethically and legally bound to stay with them.  you have entered a legal contract binding you to them. you are not allowed to cx your orders b/c of market events. you are expected to suck it up and lose money.

i don't agree that it's illegal hence the "cut off your balls" comment. 

He's referring to the argument you guys were having in his 'endorsement' thread about whether or not it's "fraudulent" to place a CC order you intend to cancel, which in his view justifies HashFast not accepting CC's. Although Ironically he's ripping off my line about how not accepting CC's and not having a refund policy means you're cutting off your balls and handing it to the chipmakers:


I guess I should be flattered, since I guess it makes me "influential" - he also referenced something I said in his first post

I think the Miner protection plan makes Hashfast a slightly better deal.  It ameliorates a lot of the risk caused by the possibility of HashFast being a few weeks late. I think KnC should match it.

Not sure what you're saying here.  Every vendor -every one, even those who have demonstrated some shipping- continue to have some red flags.  And, that includes HashFast.

I interpret what he says as that there are enough risk factors already to add outright, unprotected, failure to deliver as the ultimate one, at least from a financial standpoint.

This is definitely just sayin, and in no way challenging your decision to buy a Baby Jet.

That said, from the sound of your post, if I were you, I'd sit back and ask myself if I'm overly wedded to the pure idea of "high hash power" after all this time ("Can't wait to see 1 400 GH/s chip running in a box").  The second sentence seems to support that Need for Speed.

Again, just saying, and encouraging introspection.  This may not be a business decision for you, but there are risks that it could turn out to be little more than an expensive hobby.

BTW, I'd also point out the the vendor that "Baby Jet" is not that good a name, all in all.  People in forums like to abbreviate things, and a name that abbreviates to "BJ" was likely not the best choice...