To be honest, I don't really care much that they are going to do this, but they could mine against a p2pool that is modified to not submit the winning block, and simply log the success. This would mine on mainnet and still be verifiable.
Alternatively they could mine the coins PPS into individual wallets and sent a printout of the private key import details. I get the feeling that this isn't the same as the cars because those cars weren't driven to the financial benefit of anyone. If you found out that the reason the odometer was 300 was because Ford was renting the cars out on a daily basis and pocketing the money, then you might be less happy about it.
But ultimately I don't really care. I just want my ASIC to arrive working.
Topic: is butterfly labs mining with those ASICs at the moment? - page 11. (Read 37544 times)
You know, even if they eventually ran the cards for absolute profit/testing purposes, yeah they're driving up the difficulty but every single chip they make is going out into the field eventually and it's obviously going to be mining. So if they make 1000 and run them themselves for a bit, those 1000 are going to drive up the difficulty no matter what. So what if BFL makes it happen a week earlier? That's not that big of a deal, especially if it lowers the price for you.
In fact, if it costs $200 to make and they want a $50 profit then they mine $100 worth of BTC with it before it's released then send it to you for $149, not only is it tested to work to save you headaches with an RMA but basically most of that money they just made went into your pocket because it would have cost $250 if they had not mined with it. That why I keep saying I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. I'd have even less of a problem with it if they donated all BTC mined to a bitcoin charity or this forum or the development team or something.
Btw so you don't break the test net, maybe someone should develop a temporary.....butterfly net! lol. It writes itself, people.
In fact, if it costs $200 to make and they want a $50 profit then they mine $100 worth of BTC with it before it's released then send it to you for $149, not only is it tested to work to save you headaches with an RMA but basically most of that money they just made went into your pocket because it would have cost $250 if they had not mined with it. That why I keep saying I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. I'd have even less of a problem with it if they donated all BTC mined to a bitcoin charity or this forum or the development team or something.
Btw so you don't break the test net, maybe someone should develop a temporary.....butterfly net! lol. It writes itself, people.
It's not bad, I just don't want to make a commitment and then have to break it due to unforeseen difficulties. As to "why" those details were told to certain individuals at the conference, it was simply because they asked. I don't even know who the various individuals were that I explained our plan to. If the community did not react so violently to changes in statements made here, we would be more open about our plans, but as it is, if we make a statement and then later have to change that, it turns into a giant mess.
Nedbert9: We have the best interests of Bitcoin as a whole at heart. Since you disagree that keeping the security of the network is of paramount importance, please let me know what your order number(s) are and I will get your refund issued immediately so that you may pre-order elsewhere.
Nedbert9: We have the best interests of Bitcoin as a whole at heart. Since you disagree that keeping the security of the network is of paramount importance, please let me know what your order number(s) are and I will get your refund issued immediately so that you may pre-order elsewhere.
You'll have to talk to Gavin and the others than maintain test net if you want answers to that. They have repeatedly requested that people not mine on test net because it raises the difficulty, making it impossible to test with. If we unleashed 20 TH onto test net for even 24 hours, it would make it unusable for everyone else. Feel free to disagree, but this has been an issue for a couple years now, please go research it.
Yes, I am going to shrug off this invalid point because we are not now and have not been testing ASICs on the live network, so it's an immaterial argument.
But you WILL test ASICs on the live network? Why has the information surrounding this testing only been disclosed to select persons at the Bitcoin conference? Why will you not disclose that information to everyone else?Yes, I am going to shrug off this invalid point because we are not now and have not been testing ASICs on the live network, so it's an immaterial argument.
It's not an immaterial argument just because you haven't done it in the past, when you are obviously going to do it in the future. And the fact that you refuse to give out the details of this to the community as a whole has me concerned now. What can be so bad that you cannot reveal it until it happens?
Yes, Josh. You aren't treating your customers very well on this specific point in raising visibility to the issue of QC mining on main-net.
You know what kind of response this was likely to get. And that response might have very well affected sales volume unless BFL convinced the majority why it was unavoidable to use main-net for testing.
Shrugging it off and acting like it's a non-issue and not treating the matter with the seriousness and disclosure it deserves - while there might not be an easy answer to avoiding main-net - really reflects poorly on your skills in dealing with important PR issues.
Well, at least there's competition now.
edit:
Even if the test-net dev's request that you not mine there does not preclude BFL's ability to have an isolated testing environment with a few nodes and a pool. I do not see the justification for broadcasting blocks to the production network - for every single device - just to satisfy QC concerns.
You'll have to talk to Gavin and the others than maintain test net if you want answers to that. They have repeatedly requested that people not mine on test net because it raises the difficulty, making it impossible to test with. If we unleashed 20 TH onto test net for even 24 hours, it would make it unusable for everyone else. Feel free to disagree, but this has been an issue for a couple years now, please go research it.
Yes, I am going to shrug off this invalid point because we are not now and have not been testing ASICs on the live network, so it's an immaterial argument.
But you WILL test ASICs on the live network? Why has the information surrounding this testing only been disclosed to select persons at the Bitcoin conference? Why will you not disclose that information to everyone else?Yes, I am going to shrug off this invalid point because we are not now and have not been testing ASICs on the live network, so it's an immaterial argument.
It's not an immaterial argument just because you haven't done it in the past, when you are obviously going to do it in the future. And the fact that you refuse to give out the details of this to the community as a whole has me concerned now. What can be so bad that you cannot reveal it until it happens?
You'll have to talk to Gavin and the others than maintain test net if you want answers to that. They have repeatedly requested that people not mine on test net because it raises the difficulty, making it impossible to test with. If we unleashed 20 TH onto test net for even 24 hours, it would make it unusable for everyone else. Feel free to disagree, but this has been an issue for a couple years now, please go research it.
Yes, I am going to shrug off this invalid point because we are not now and have not been testing ASICs on the live network, so it's an immaterial argument.
Yes, I am going to shrug off this invalid point because we are not now and have not been testing ASICs on the live network, so it's an immaterial argument.
If we tested on testnet, it would make testnet useless, since it would spike the difficulty to unmanagable levels.
Disagree. Explain your point. Rendering Testnet useless for non BFL testing activities is what I assume you mean? Provide a supporting argument for this.
Regardless, we aren't testing any ASIC equipment on the live network either now or in the past, so it's pretty immaterial. We already have a plan, which I explained to several people at the Bitcoin conference on how we are going to handle the live testing when that time comes.
Immaterial? Maybe immaterial to the OP's point, but it's quite material to what BFL will introduce in terms of difficulty prior to customer delivery of your product.
As the PR person for BFL are you really going to shrug off this very valid point?
You, BFL rather, have a plan? And it was discussed with select individuals at the conference.
How is this any sort of representation of the company to your customers. I could care less about the conversations you had at the conference.
This is such a condescending and weak argument. Unless you have some amazing point about why test-net would be rendered a hulking piece of junk by unleashing your ASIC's on it this sounds like misinformation.
So what do you want them to do? You want them to NOT run thru a QC test and ship a product that has never been verified to be able to bitmine?! I'm sorry, but a 24-hour burn-in to test that my product actually works is well within their rights, and I'd prefer it that way!
I worked at a card dealership when I was younger. We would get BRAND NEW cars off the truck, straight from the manufacturer, but the odometer would read anywhere from 10-300 miles. Some of our customers wanted a car that read 0 on the odometer. We had to explain: these cars get tested and used at the manufacturing facility, and will not have zero milage. That's just the way it is. How'd you like it if you get a car from the manufacturer, with 0 miles, and it didn't start?! You'd complain that their Quality Control was poor! Same thing here.
I worked at a card dealership when I was younger. We would get BRAND NEW cars off the truck, straight from the manufacturer, but the odometer would read anywhere from 10-300 miles. Some of our customers wanted a car that read 0 on the odometer. We had to explain: these cars get tested and used at the manufacturing facility, and will not have zero milage. That's just the way it is. How'd you like it if you get a car from the manufacturer, with 0 miles, and it didn't start?! You'd complain that their Quality Control was poor! Same thing here.
Crazy. Respectfully. The analogy is unnecessary in this case. Also, Bitcoin has main-net and then test-net. Test-net is for testing and is protocol compatible enough to test hashers.
The more people that don't know about test-net the more this "Quality Control" issue can be passed off as a prudent, professional activity. In reality it's a QC measure and a way to skim off the top of mining profits.
Effectively, raising difficulty prematurely before the ASICS are in the hands of customers. It's slimey.
If we tested on testnet, it would make testnet useless, since it would spike the difficulty to unmanagable levels.
Regardless, we aren't testing any ASIC equipment on the live network either now or in the past, so it's pretty immaterial. We already have a plan, which I explained to several people at the Bitcoin conference on how we are going to handle the live testing when that time comes.
Regardless, we aren't testing any ASIC equipment on the live network either now or in the past, so it's pretty immaterial. We already have a plan, which I explained to several people at the Bitcoin conference on how we are going to handle the live testing when that time comes.
Do not you dare test a difficulty changing amount of hashing power on mainnet.
THIS IS WHAT TEST NET IS FOR.
THIS IS WHAT TEST NET IS FOR.
More like testnet-in-a-box.
All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC). After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day. We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well).
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
When paired with ASIC technology BFL testing practices are disturbing.
For an initial batch production and shipment of BFL SC equipment how much will the "live pool" ASIC mining affect difficulty prior to ASICs being in the wild?
Let's say a conservative estimate of 20 TH total capacity for the first batch run. Let's say one month of production where units are coming off the line assembled and being stored for batch shipment. Of course, not before the essential live pool testing.
Would it then be reasonable to assume that the equivalent of approx. 666 GH per day in units would be in "live pool" burn-in testing?
Difficulty adjusted that's still well over 200 BTC, or 2500 USD, per day skimmed off the top.
You know this looks bad, right?
So what do you want them to do? You want them to NOT run thru a QC test and ship a product that has never been verified to be able to bitmine?! I'm sorry, but a 24-hour burn-in to test that my product actually works is well within their rights, and I'd prefer it that way!
I worked at a card dealership when I was younger. We would get BRAND NEW cars off the truck, straight from the manufacturer, but the odometer would read anywhere from 10-300 miles. Some of our customers wanted a car that read 0 on the odometer. We had to explain: these cars get tested and used at the manufacturing facility, and will not have zero milage. That's just the way it is. How'd you like it if you get a car from the manufacturer, with 0 miles, and it didn't start?! You'd complain that their Quality Control was poor! Same thing here.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Testnet
BFL, Inaba, hugs and kisses to both of you.
But Please.
Do not you dare test a difficulty changing amount of hashing power on mainnet.
THIS IS WHAT TEST NET IS FOR.
USE IT.
All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC). After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day. We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well).
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
When paired with ASIC technology BFL testing practices are disturbing.
For an initial batch production and shipment of BFL SC equipment how much will the "live pool" ASIC mining affect difficulty prior to ASICs being in the wild?
Let's say a conservative estimate of 20 TH total capacity for the first batch run. Let's say one month of production where units are coming off the line assembled and being stored for batch shipment. Of course, not before the essential live pool testing.
Would it then be reasonable to assume that the equivalent of approx. 666 GH per day in units would be in "live pool" burn-in testing?
Difficulty adjusted that's still well over 200 BTC, or 2500 USD, per day skimmed off the top.
You know this looks bad, right?
So what do you want them to do? You want them to NOT run thru a QC test and ship a product that has never been verified to be able to bitmine?! I'm sorry, but a 24-hour burn-in to test that my product actually works is well within their rights, and I'd prefer it that way!
I worked at a card dealership when I was younger. We would get BRAND NEW cars off the truck, straight from the manufacturer, but the odometer would read anywhere from 10-300 miles. Some of our customers wanted a car that read 0 on the odometer. We had to explain: these cars get tested and used at the manufacturing facility, and will not have zero milage. That's just the way it is. How'd you like it if you get a car from the manufacturer, with 0 miles, and it didn't start?! You'd complain that their Quality Control was poor! Same thing here.
Did it ever occur to people that self ASIC mining could have always been part of the plan?
BFL promised tentative dates of Oct or Nov for ASIC deliveries. As long as they met that, then no one has any right to complain or state BFL is acting inappropriately. If BFL planned for ASIC completion in September and to self mine for 2 months, and only then deliver en mass to purchasers, that would be completely consistent with what people bought and paid for.
People bought an ASIC to be delivered by end-of-November and for those parts to function for 1 year. Whatever BFL does with the hardware before end-of-November is their business....
just my 2 cents.
BFL promised tentative dates of Oct or Nov for ASIC deliveries. As long as they met that, then no one has any right to complain or state BFL is acting inappropriately. If BFL planned for ASIC completion in September and to self mine for 2 months, and only then deliver en mass to purchasers, that would be completely consistent with what people bought and paid for.
People bought an ASIC to be delivered by end-of-November and for those parts to function for 1 year. Whatever BFL does with the hardware before end-of-November is their business....
just my 2 cents.
All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC). After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day. We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well).
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
When paired with ASIC technology BFL testing practices are disturbing.
For an initial batch production and shipment of BFL SC equipment how much will the "live pool" ASIC mining affect difficulty prior to ASICs being in the wild?
Let's say a conservative estimate of 20 TH total capacity for the first batch run. Let's say one month of production where units are coming off the line assembled and being stored for batch shipment. Of course, not before the essential live pool testing.
Would it then be reasonable to assume that the equivalent of approx. 666 GH per day in units would be in "live pool" burn-in testing?
Difficulty adjusted that's still well over 200 BTC, or 2500 USD, per day skimmed off the top.
You know this looks bad, right?
All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC). After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day. We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well).
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
When paired with ASIC technology BFL testing practices are disturbing.
For an initial batch production and shipment of BFL SC equipment how much will the "live pool" ASIC mining affect difficulty prior to ASICs being in the wild?
Let's say a conservative estimate of 20 TH total capacity for the first batch run. Let's say one month of production where units are coming off the line assembled and being stored for batch shipment. Of course, not before the essential live pool testing.
Would it then be reasonable to assume that the equivalent of approx. 666 GH per day in units would be in "live pool" burn-in testing?
Difficulty adjusted that's still well over 200 BTC, or 2500 USD, per day skimmed off the top.
You know this looks bad, right?
It could just very well be all the mini-rigs that have shipped up til now. There are plenty of them in the wild @ 25GH/s.
^This. You won the prize!I can name (just from people who I know have them) ~19 Minirigs, so that's 475Gh/s right there - I doubt BFL manufactured less than 100...
I know of at least another 10.
All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC). After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day. We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well).
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
Thanks for the information. We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
Well apparently if the extradited from Italy for fraud part is true, I don't think BFL would have any problem faking a screenshot. I could turn 1 million shares into 100k in about 15 seconds in photoshop 
Or just mine with like 10 computers, each on a different pool. That's basically 100% undetectable. It'd look like an even rise across the whole bitcoin system.
Btw I see someone posted a picture of butterfly labs in the general forum
EDIT: O, hai Josh! *waves*
"You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool."
Kinda no way to "be sure" but how do you have real world pool-based bitcoin mining hash numbers posted if you're using artifical hases only? There has to be a heck of a variance with no offsite server to contact. Certainly with 7000 pre-orders, you did make sure they function using live bitcoin protocol data at some point? lol.
Also, new butterfly labs logo, perhaps? what do you think?:
Or just mine with like 10 computers, each on a different pool. That's basically 100% undetectable. It'd look like an even rise across the whole bitcoin system.Btw I see someone posted a picture of butterfly labs in the general forum
EDIT: O, hai Josh! *waves*
"You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool."
Kinda no way to "be sure" but how do you have real world pool-based bitcoin mining hash numbers posted if you're using artifical hases only? There has to be a heck of a variance with no offsite server to contact. Certainly with 7000 pre-orders, you did make sure they function using live bitcoin protocol data at some point? lol.
Also, new butterfly labs logo, perhaps? what do you think?:
All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC). After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day. We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well).
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time. You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
Jump to: