Is Avalon mining with customer hardware? Answer is here. - page 3.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: ibminer on June 20, 2013, 03:29:30 PM

Quote from: koob on June 20, 2013, 02:49:57 PM

Quote from: ibminer on June 20, 2013, 01:43:24 PM

any mining before shipping doesn't help the customer at all... except to test and ensure the device is burned in. I would much rather the customers be the one causing the spike and reaping the benefits, they are the ones who appear to have put the capital into the project. Not that Yifu and Avalon haven't done a good amount of work themselves, and deserve to be compensated... but that's the whole point of them creating a price point on batch 1, and marking up every batch since then. To mark up prices AND mine just seems greedy, and Yifu just doesn't strike me as THAT greedy of a person...

keyword is "at this point".

Indeed that is a significant phrase in this statement... but I still feel like *any* mining before shipping (if not for burning in purposes) takes away from the potential mining a customer would/should be doing. At this point, there are still plenty of unshipped units... and IF they actually have been mining with what they have already shipped, then those unshipped Avalon's (theoretically) would be mining right now... not sure how that is better for those customers who own the unshipped Avalons?

EDIT: I believe what you may be trying to say is that the only positive thing out of this right now is that the hashrate wouldn't spike, if they have been mining... and yes, that would be exciting... but its still an overall loss to the customer and effects ROI, right? Still somewhat of a noob, so I can't claim to act like I know completely what I am talking about... just stating how it appears to me!

I think the correct explanation of "at this point" is "ignorance is bliss"

...

and wow while I was reading and typing ... this thread changed Cheesy

Edit: thread changes gone ... much better

koob

full member

Activity: 204

Merit: 100

Quote from: ibminer on June 20, 2013, 03:29:30 PM

Indeed that is a significant phrase in this statement... but I still feel like *any* mining before shipping (if not for burning in purposes) takes away from the potential mining a customer would/should be doing. At this point, there are still plenty of unshipped units... and IF they actually have been mining with what they have already shipped, then those unshipped Avalon's (theoretically) would be mining right now... not sure how that is better for those customers who own the unshipped Avalons?

EDIT: I believe what you may be trying to say is that the only positive thing out of this right now is that the hashrate wouldn't spike, if they have been mining... and yes, that would be exciting... but its still an overall loss to the customer and effects ROI, right? Still somewhat of a noob, so I can't claim to act like I know completely what I am talking about... just stating how it appears to me!

Thats exactly what I was trying to say - thanks for clarifying.
I dont think minning with customers hardware was anyhow correct ( I thikn was highly unethical if really happen ). I believe (as Bitsyncom stated) they will ship missing order at good pace from now, so IF they were mining with that hardware, hashrate shouldnt spike that much when customers receive em.

Im just trying to find some positives in those delays ( as I am batch#3 still waiting customer )

Loredo

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: mem on June 20, 2013, 12:45:34 AM

Queue Josh style tantrums for not believing him @ his word, hell it only took ~10 forums pages before we got a direct answer !!!!

I doubt that we'll see Josh style tantrums out of team Avalon. Josh's problem is that he obviously takes things personally. That's a dangerous tendency to let show in public. When people see you have push-able buttons, you get you buttons pushed.

We may get exasperated Roll Eyes

out of them, but, hey, it's just business. Good business, and they're in the driver's seat. They don't need to get pissy.

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

Quote from: koob on June 20, 2013, 02:49:57 PM

Quote from: ibminer on June 20, 2013, 01:43:24 PM

any mining before shipping doesn't help the customer at all... except to test and ensure the device is burned in. I would much rather the customers be the one causing the spike and reaping the benefits, they are the ones who appear to have put the capital into the project. Not that Yifu and Avalon haven't done a good amount of work themselves, and deserve to be compensated... but that's the whole point of them creating a price point on batch 1, and marking up every batch since then. To mark up prices AND mine just seems greedy, and Yifu just doesn't strike me as THAT greedy of a person...

keyword is "at this point".

Indeed that is a significant phrase in this statement... but I still feel like *any* mining before shipping (if not for burning in purposes) takes away from the potential mining a customer would/should be doing. At this point, there are still plenty of unshipped units... and IF they actually have been mining with what they have already shipped, then those unshipped Avalon's (theoretically) would be mining right now... not sure how that is better for those customers who own the unshipped Avalons?

EDIT: I believe what you may be trying to say is that the only positive thing out of this right now is that the hashrate wouldn't spike, if they have been mining... and yes, that would be exciting... but its still an overall loss to the customer and effects ROI, right? Still somewhat of a noob, so I can't claim to act like I know completely what I am talking about... just stating how it appears to me!

k9quaint

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

Quote from: koob on June 20, 2013, 02:49:57 PM

Quote from: ibminer on June 20, 2013, 01:43:24 PM

any mining before shipping doesn't help the customer at all... except to test and ensure the device is burned in. I would much rather the customers be the one causing the spike and reaping the benefits, they are the ones who appear to have put the capital into the project. Not that Yifu and Avalon haven't done a good amount of work themselves, and deserve to be compensated... but that's the whole point of them creating a price point on batch 1, and marking up every batch since then. To mark up prices AND mine just seems greedy, and Yifu just doesn't strike me as THAT greedy of a person...

keyword is "at this point".

Kate Upton on a horse.

koob

full member

Activity: 204

Merit: 100

Quote from: ibminer on June 20, 2013, 01:43:24 PM

any mining before shipping doesn't help the customer at all... except to test and ensure the device is burned in. I would much rather the customers be the one causing the spike and reaping the benefits, they are the ones who appear to have put the capital into the project. Not that Yifu and Avalon haven't done a good amount of work themselves, and deserve to be compensated... but that's the whole point of them creating a price point on batch 1, and marking up every batch since then. To mark up prices AND mine just seems greedy, and Yifu just doesn't strike me as THAT greedy of a person...

keyword is "at this point".

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

Quote from: koob on June 20, 2013, 01:22:44 PM

To be honest, at this point (when they stated that shipping at full speed just began) it would be better for customers if they mined with those Avalons. That would mean no hashrate jump when they finish shipping ;X

any mining before shipping doesn't help the customer at all... except to test and ensure the device is burned in. I would much rather the customers be the one causing the spike and reaping the benefits, they are the ones who appear to have put the capital into the project. Not that Yifu and Avalon haven't done a good amount of work themselves, and deserve to be compensated... but that's the whole point of them creating a price point on batch 1, and marking up every batch since then. To mark up prices AND mine just seems greedy, and Yifu just doesn't strike me as THAT greedy of a person...

koob

full member

Activity: 204

Merit: 100

To be honest, at this point (when they stated that shipping at full speed just began) it would be better for customers if they mined with those Avalons. That would mean no hashrate jump when they finish shipping ;X

idee2013

sr. member

Activity: 407

Merit: 250

Quote from: Bitcoin Roll on June 20, 2013, 12:28:44 PM

This will help clear things regarding Avalon using your equipment before they ship it http://www.coindesk.com/avalon-accused-of-mining-with-customer-asics/

lol..a infoloop...

Bitcoin Roll

newbie

Activity: 44

Merit: 0

This will help clear things regarding Avalon using your equipment before they ship it http://www.coindesk.com/avalon-accused-of-mining-with-customer-asics/

dropt

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Vicus on June 20, 2013, 11:44:48 AM

Default behavior on all units was "Balance", when unit is working on all pools in some sequence. This is the reason, why graph data is so confusing and looks like burn-in. "Failover" is working with one pool. Priority first to last. When higher priority pool is become available again, cgminer switching back to it.

Mine was set to balanced as well. It was also full of dust. I haven't opened it to check what rev the controller is, but I'd actually be surprised if it was the (newer) one with issues. My machine was of the earliest of early Batch 2's sent. It would have been nice if they had shipped my unit following the original agreed-to time line, but I'm impartial to the matter.

Vicus

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cedivad on June 20, 2013, 10:44:06 AM

First of all, that is one third of a failover. It means that the 2 before them must be down. Just a rough calculation: let's suppose that the uptime of the first 2 providers is 90% (that's a low uptime). That means that the RLW address accounts for (10/100)^2 = 0.01 of the time. If 0.01 is 700BTC, 1 is 70'000 BTC. I'm not claiming that this is correct, i'm just doing some math.
I'm not sure that the failover works like that, i didn't check the code: it could be doing a round robin; in that case, the math above is completely wrong.

Default behavior on all units was "Balance", when unit is working on all pools in some sequence. This is the reason, why graph data is so confusing and looks like burn-in. "Failover" is working with one pool. Priority first to last. When higher priority pool is become available again, cgminer switching back to it.

Tomatocage

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1222

brb keeping up with the Kardashians

I find it funny how BFL and Avalon are shipping a staggering amount of hashing power which has come online in the last week or two and yet the target difficulty is still the same... actually less than current difficulty Cheesy

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKtsdZs9LJo

rovchris

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: cedivad on June 20, 2013, 10:44:06 AM

I got my units today. Before starting, thank you Avalon, 2 months late is always better than never.

I would like to share my view.

#1

Quote from: Vicus on June 17, 2013, 03:00:35 AM

As you can see, first pool is eligius.st and most important is address: https://blockchain.info/address/1AYdAw8CcrQ2wx55LTbFHRn5bxgNZhaRLW?offset=0&filter=0
716.40851602 BTC was mined from April 22 by various units.

First of all, that is one third of a failover. It means that the 2 before them must be down. Just a rough calculation: let's suppose that the uptime of the first 2 providers is 90% (that's a low uptime). That means that the RLW address accounts for (10/100)^2 = 0.01 of the time. If 0.01 is 700BTC, 1 is 70'000 BTC. I'm not claiming that this is correct, i'm just doing some math.
I'm not sure that the failover works like that, i didn't check the code: it could be doing a round robin; in that case, the math above is completely wrong.

#2

Of the 3 units i connected, 2 had a firmware that was release in April. April was the initial release date of these units, before all of the delays happend. The units where also full of dust.

If these units have been produced a week ago, like we are being told (new magic smt line, 50 units per day), how is it that they have an April firmware on it?

Well to answer that - they are obviously incapable of being honest - There is so much evidence now it is beyond a joke. All I can say is I will never being sending any of my hard earned money to them.

So to sum up - you guys PAID for all the development - took all the risk - they have then used your devices to make themselves even more money (because a no risk investment was not good enough) - Pushed the difficulty up, leaving less coins available to mine.

All the hallmarks of a Bank

Effectively they have just stolen from all their customers - that is what they think of you. Peons to exploit.

cedivad

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

I got my units today. Before starting, thank you Avalon, 2 months late is always better than never.

I would like to share my view.

#1

Quote from: Vicus on June 17, 2013, 03:00:35 AM

As you can see, first pool is eligius.st and most important is address: https://blockchain.info/address/1AYdAw8CcrQ2wx55LTbFHRn5bxgNZhaRLW?offset=0&filter=0
716.40851602 BTC was mined from April 22 by various units.

First of all, that is one third of a failover. It means that the 2 before them must be down. Just a rough calculation: let's suppose that the uptime of the first 2 providers is 90% (that's a low uptime). That means that the RLW address accounts for (10/100)^2 = 0.01 of the time. If 0.01 is 700BTC, 1 is 70'000 BTC. I'm not claiming that this is correct, i'm just doing some math.
I'm not sure that the failover works like that, i didn't check the code: it could be doing a round robin; in that case, the math above is completely wrong.

#2

Of the 3 units i connected, 2 had a firmware that was release in April. April was the initial release date of these units, before all of the delays happend. The units where also full of dust.

If these units have been produced a week ago, like we are being told (new magic smt line, 50 units per day), how is it that they have an April firmware on it?

seleme

legendary

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1028

Duelbits.com

Quote from: Hippie Tech on June 20, 2013, 09:30:05 AM

Quote from: ibminer on June 20, 2013, 05:25:13 AM

I still have faith in you Yifu... I believe you to be someone who actually cares for bitcoins and the future of them, which is why I know you would not be mining with customer equipment... assuming that you believe something like this happening could really hurt the future of bitcoin.

If they even had 0.5001 of a Bitcoin heart, the people at BFL and Avalon would not have allowed the trashing of the Crypto movement, with these shady business practices and distribution methods.

Is it just me or is Bitcoin starting to look more like bit-CIA-n ? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gavin-will-visit-the-cia-6652

"Thank you" for making me read 2 years old thread.

Hippie Tech

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1001

All cryptos are FIAT digital currency. Do not use.

Quote from: ibminer on June 20, 2013, 05:25:13 AM

I still have faith in you Yifu... I believe you to be someone who actually cares for bitcoins and the future of them, which is why I know you would not be mining with customer equipment... assuming that you believe something like this happening could really hurt the future of bitcoin.

If they even had 0.5001 of a Bitcoin heart, the people at BFL and Avalon would not have allowed the trashing of the Crypto movement, with these shady business practices and distribution methods.

Is it just me or is Bitcoin starting to look more like bit-CIA-n ? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gavin-will-visit-the-cia-6652

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

I still have faith in you Yifu... I believe you to be someone who actually cares for bitcoins and the future of them, which is why I know you would not be mining with customer equipment... assuming that you believe something like this happening could really hurt the future of bitcoin.

Vicus

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

BitSyncom, offtopic question: don't you think, that anti76 is waiting too long and punished enough?

Topic: Is Avalon mining with customer hardware? Answer is here. - page 3. (Read 44394 times)