Topic: High Efficiency FPGA & ASIC Bitcoin Mining Devices https://BTCFPGA.com - page 44. (Read 218469 times)

I don't see an issue with calling out the 1 watt/gh claim. Esp. considering his supporting evidence shows that BFL has in the past grossly overestimated their stats.

BFL numbers are based on calculations not actual devices. I will believe it when I see it given their past history. Tom has address the power issue here before, saying he would give an actual estimate when he has boards in his hand as he doesn't want to give an unreasonable number. He has stated his power draw will be competitive and I believe him given his past transparency and reliability.

This is just Josh trolling plain an simple. I wish BFL would hire more competent people to handle PR as all Josh is doing his making his company look worse and as evidenced from this thread making people question (more so than Tom could ever do) if their purchase with BFL was right.

Even at 150w, your ROI would be measured in years, not months.

ckolivas and I are 2 of the developers getting a dev bASIC for ensuring early cgminer support.

This work on the MMQ (mainly the rethreading part I'll get to next) is also very much in line with supporting the bASIC (and other ASIC) due to the major performance issues they will represent.

cgminer already runs on 12.04
I also have a 12.04 VM setup, but idle, since I don't need it while ckolvias binaries support and run on 12.04
... I created it in case anyone ever asked me for a non GPU 12.04 binary

I also have the 11.04 VM that I make the 'Version'a release each time in the cgminer thread since there is no 11.04 binary released by ckolivas (and I need it )
That will continue while GPU mining is still (in my opinion) an option, and I will start creating 12.04 binaries (in my downloads) if they are ever needed for a different version to what ckolivas creates if required

Hopefully that answers your questions

Nope, i'm aware of that. I was referring to his post that attracted inaba to the thread. (he called out *** on their 1W/Gh claim).  This slingfest and negativity could have been avoided, and hopefully will stop now.

LOL I think you missed the part where Cablepair said he went out of town.....

Then get busy and make a post on the BFL forums and I'm sure you'll get an answer.

Tom clearly stated he was going out of town

Inaba Please refund the following order...  Thanks...
All no this was not for sale... I would rather get the refund and buy the basic. Sorry..!!
Keep trolling Lol



Dear Bradley,

I have applied your previous payment for 2 BitForce Singles to a new order for one BitForce Single SC and have sent you a PayPal invoice for the difference ($91). Upon receipt of this payment your order upgrade will be confirmed and your order date will become 6/23/2012 which is the earliest date we began accepting pre-orders for the SC products.

Kind regards,

John
BF Labs, Inc. Customer Service

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:59 AM, PlazzMan <[email protected]> wrote:

    Hello Customer Service,

      On Mon. June 18, 2012 a had ordered 2 BitForce SHA256 Singles as you will see from the receipt posted below.
      I would like to convert it into preorder for 1 BitForce Single ‘SC’  40 GH/s  -  $1,299
      I would have no problem paying the difference in usd which I believe is $101 difference.
      Will be awaiting an Invoice from BFL Labs.

    Thank You, Brad Goodnight
    [email protected]




    -----Original Message-----
    From: Butterfly Labs Inc <[email protected]>
    To: plazzman05 <[email protected]>
    Sent: Fri, Jun 22, 2012 12:49 pm
    Subject: Re: New submission from Order Form - BitForce SHA256 Single

    Hi Bradley, thank you for your order.

    Your PayPal payment has been received in full and your 2 BitForce SHA256 Singles are secure. Your date of purchase is 06/18/2012. I will send you tracking when your order ships.

    Thanks again for your interest in our product.

    Kind regards,
    Jody D.
    Customer Service
    BF Labs, Inc.


    On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Bradley Goodnight <[email protected]> wrote:

        Preferred payment method

Holy crap

Inaba and Cablepair, what the heck. seriously. This mudslinging is patently ridiculous, utterly unprofessional, and not at all helpful to anyone, or any business. It certainly does not make either company look good.

Cablepair: I hope you have learned to not mention or talk about *** or Inaba in your thread: this is what happens.
Inaba: Dude, you're going to come and read this in a month or so and realise how foolish it makes you look.

Read this very carefully: you would look very (even more) foolish continuing to reply to each other in this thread.

This forum has an excelent feature, its called "Ignore".  I strongly suggest you BOTH use it, for your customers' sakes.

Other News:
New Hosting is setup and new Website is coming along nicely - we will have a big launch with detailed specs of our bASIC mining devices coming at you really soon! Be patient - it will be well worth it



Also:

I will be out of town on Business tonight and will return tomorrow - if you really need me call - I wont be answering many more emails today.

I will resume regular working hours tomorrow

Tom
(315) 514-0269

Still  waiting on that refund.. I thought your policy was to give them on request.??

I like ozcoin 

So which pools do you suggest?

Technically the BitForce Single had 2x the power consumption of the MMQ, and I still consider it to be "competitive". Do you not agree?

Technically the BitForce Single had 2x the power consumption of the MMQ, and I still consider it to be "competitive". Do you not agree?

I also want to know what is "competitive."  Is 2x the power consumption considered "competitive?" (Personally, I think 10 - 20% is competitive, not +100%, but I want to know what Tom's definition is.)