Topic: KNCMiner and their 'magic' SHA256 alogorithm - page 2. (Read 8798 times)

No look, it's cool, you just haven't been here from the start. Anyone here from the start (April time) is welcome to chime in on this, it's certainly within the main thread.

--

KnC pre ORSoC promised a machine for around $3k, no real specs, just a choice to;

A) pay upfront pre-order and be in the first 1-500
B) pay half upfront and half when proven and be 501-1000

This was purely to gauge interest and pich to ORSoC, who they admit if weren't on board this venture would never get off the ground. THIS is why they rewarded the first 500, their interest and attention sealed the deal.

--

Next we hear ORSoC have come aboard. This is where my interest was sparked.

Two units were announced

Jupiter ASIC at 250 gh/s at $7k

Mars FPGA at 6 gh/s at $2,795

No one really understood the point of Mars,  but they were promising to uphold the queue order unless you paid for mars so you got guarded early order on Jupiter and a $2k discount for Jupiter.

I wanted Mars as a Litecoin FPGA so that's basically how I got in contact and involved as I pushed an quizzed their motives there. You should be able to see all that from the OG thread.

Anyway they need Mars for the ASIC design and we are promised it will lead to at least 30% hashing optimisation.

--

A lower entry model is introduced

Saturn 175 gh/s
Jupiter is revised at 350gh/s

Optimisation included 250 x 1.3 = 325

--

Mars is dropped from sale and exists purely to abuse for Saturn/ Jupiter's gain, but there will be a Mars Rev.2, just different...


I know it still appears like the 30% isn't added, but it is.

I'm just about out for the weekend, and stopped in to update on this thread.

Gotta say, the discussion is overall so lucid, reasoned, non-ad hominem, and civil as to threaten to give bitcoin forums a good name. 

Have a good week end.

Ok, now I'm not going to just drop this. I'll try to put this as plain and simple as I can for you once again; I'm not saying that their 30% boost is, or is not a part of the current rated speeds of 175 and 350 Gh/s. There was a post earlier from blastbob saying, "It has been advertised with 350GHs with possible 30% more with optimization..," and to which Bitcoinorama replied, "No it hasn't." The point in my posts were simply to say, "Yes, it has. And it's on the damn product pages." This shouldn't be speculation either. This should be a simple, confirmed fact that, considering a potential 30% boost, absolutely does matter.

You say it's a mistake, but as far as I can tell, it's based on assumption, Bitcoinorama, as I can't find any record stating clearly that the 30% boost is already accounted for in these currently rated speeds. I'll concede that yes, maybe it is a mistake, after all. However, I absolutely will argue semantics because if you think the language used in which to say something never matters, then you're a fool. In many cases, if not every, context matters just as much as does content. In this case, imagine a new customer, perhaps one new to the mining scene and unaware of the absurd amount of research already here on btctalk, decides they like the Jupiter as they see that not only is it comparatively highly rated (speed-wise) to other ASIC options, but KnCMiner are also promising a 30% increase to hashing power with the advanced algos applied by ORSoC, so they make a purchase. Now, are you to say KnC wouldn't be liable for the information they advertise about their miners? Before you say anything, of course, the customer should "do their homework" as you have so adamantly stressed through a great number of your posts, but the "hypothetical fact" it is an inadvertent mistake on the part of KnC is entirely irrelevant.

Are you able to provide where you did this as I certainly have not been successful at finding such a statement.

What bothers me most, Bitcoinorama, is you approach me with a condescending attitude and make numerous assumptions in your response regarding what I have and haven’t done, while giving no source to counter the position you've assigned to me, namely, that I think the 30% isn't accounted for in the current specs. Well, just for shits; I will accept that position and say, "yes, the 30% is absolutely not accounted for and any additional gain from the advanced algos from OrSoc will be applied above and beyond the currently given hash speeds." Now, show me how I'm wrong. I'll show you the evidence to the contrary.

1; See product pages of Jupiter and Saturn
2; 125*30% = 162.5 ≠ 175 - - & - - 250*30% = 325 ≠ 350 (in order to make your assumptions correct, you'd have to increase those original specs by 40%, not 30%) Interesting how titomane followed your request to KS to do the very basic math and when he supplied it, your response was, "lol. I didn't actually mean you do th..." Incomplete thought?
3; From your open day report, Q&A portion...
Do you think this other anonymous member pulled the number "420" completely arbitrarily? I understand it can be dangerous to begin quoting hard numbers before they're ready to commit to them, but why cut off the discussion there?

I'll finish by saying that I mean no personal jab at you, Bitcoinorama, and the information you've provided the community has unquestionably been a great value. You're willingness to attend the meeting, offer up your efforts in answering the community's remaining questions and report back is commendable. It's even possibly arguable that we've heard more information from you about all things KnC than we've heard from KnC themselves (which may be a little disconcerting, in fact). Ultimately, though, this 30% issue is something I'd honestly like to know, as do others apparently. If you can provide a definitive answer, I'd be further grateful. However, having said that, don't accuse me of being too lazy to dig up information for myself and say that my intent on sticking with this 30% gain issue is meaningless nonsense as "it's obviously a mistake" because most following already have the "very simple answer", and then expect me not to come defend myself. My last word; the promised hash speed may be the only thing that matters to you, but for me and probably one, maybe two other people, the Gh/watts ratio is rather more important, followed by purchase price.

My apologies for smothering the page.

Not really, real engineers are not driven by sales figures.

Actually, its quite the opposite. Modern ASIC design tools employed by competent engineers usually produce working products. It is only in areas where you are pushing the boundaries of what can be done like GPUs and CPUs that is fraught with failure. SHA256 is not pushing any design boundaries. They are using a well established geometry at 28nm. It should be a layup. BFL pretended to have expertise in ASICs and you should not judge actual engineering firms (OrSoc) by BFL's track record.

Please prove that OrSoc & KNCMiner have no chip testing methodology. Links to posts where they say they are "employing no chip testing" would be sufficient.


The product does not yet exist. They are being careful about setting expectations. They don't want to "BFL" their customers.

I am sure after the product exists, they will document what it can do. Right now they are releasing estimates.
You confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence and post no evidence of your wild conjecture.
Please provide citations for your statements in the future.

They said they have a revised data set next week. Whether this is down to further refining Mars, or getting admin since the pre sales have been completed out the way so they can communicate more I don't know. Obviously we all expect chip foundry to have been selected and an order placed. Will have to see what next week brings, from a post on Wednesday in another thread Sam mentioned something positive.



EDIT: FWIW BTW I did forward your concerns and questions on in an email, and Sam said Marcus will review and respond, but they're not going to risk giving a way anything sensitive to competitors at this stage. So let's see what they come back with next week.

This a reply to Bitcoinoramo's post;

I'm not quite sure you think I 'love' BFL. They have indeed royally screwed up what should have been a technical and commercial triumph for their company and a financial one for their customers. I have my own ideas about what they did wrong, but I suspect that both they and their customers don't at this stage give a shit - they just want to get the products out and hashing.

But it's all too easy to get carried away with lots of pre-order cash and think you're some kind of Bitcoin or Silicon god. Technical history of asic designs suggests that such arrogance usually gets rewarded with humiliating failure, and your boys in KNC  / Orsoc are just about to go down the same sorry path. I mean, no chip testing methodology - just solder them to a board and see if they work? Love or hate BFL, at least they did try to get the back end right (eventually).

An earlier post suggested you might be angling for some kind of job with your heroes. Good luck to you, you are certainly defending them a lot which is your right, of course.

It's really a pity they won't put aside the pseudoscience and speculation and actually publish a proper datasheet for the product, just like any regular chip supplier. Something that tells their purchasers exactly what they are promising and - under European Law - they must then deliver (to buyers in the EU at least). It would certainly close off this thread if they did so, and might silence the skeptics, including me.

Perhaps you can help them with this?

Couldn't it be an improved method of combining 2 SHA256 sums, since that's what bitcoin mining is?  It doesn't necessarily have to be an improvement to the core SHA256 algorithm.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the KNC statement, just this thread.

Even then, it is true there is a lot BFL hasn't offered with respect to transparency, even at this late stage, which is very disconcerting as they have clearly hidden truths, whilst admitting half-truths; which is very much premeditated misinformation on their part. It's been months, and few are any wiser as to precisely what's been happening there. Whatever the reasoning, it does not add up. I'm not beating on them, just pointing out the bleedin' obvious.

I mean if they were so technically informed, and competent themselves, why on earth have they taken the irrational step of selling their proprietary technology in bulk unassembled form, instead of shipping their pre-orders complete, as promised and at the pre-disclosed promised specifications, on time? Odd, very odd behaviour for an 'engineering firm' that you claim hasn't technically mislead anyone (including themselves)...


True, so your beloved BFL should really have predicted any such errors.

KnC have run multiple simulations, created a prototype based on their RTL code and have multiple margins for error in place. They have done all the due diligence that can be undertaken prior to receiving consignment of their chips. Admittedly there is an element of blindness that is speculative, which as previously stated they have minimised risk, wherever possible, but this is a consequence of the state of play in current Bitcoin ASIC development and the respective time available competitively in this current environment, and not down to professional ineptitude. This is rocket science, and you cater for the unknowns, whilst building contingency for the unknowns. They have taken only the risk an engineer can comfortably tolerate at this stage in the game...

+1

The new 65nm chip consumes 3.2W/ghs. But MINIRIG power consumption 4.8w/Ghs  (+50%). That chip is inefficient. Compared to other 65nm (bitfury .7w/Ghs).
A minirig of bitfury have a 7 times less power consumption.  This means that working life will be less

Aside; predicted hashrate, power consumption, cooling, dimensions, shipping costs, ever increasing production costs leading them to double the retail cost for smaller units and completely remove their flagship product, and timescales as continuous dates of completion from missed targets forever being equal to two weeks, you are correct BFL have never 'put out', any technical misinformation about their products!!

If you are using a new process, sometimes the design rules have not been properly defined, and simple things like metal tracks being too close together can spell disaster. I don't know about this Nvidia incident, but I'll bet it was multiple issues that caused the problem.

Whoever told you that they speculate. They assured me that Jupiter would have a minimum 350 hashrate and less than 1000W.

Then evidently technical accuracy is not a good metric for the probability of getting the hardware promised by the date promised.

Out of curiosity / devil's advocate, how does shit like 1.7% yields (Nvidia's famous blunder) happen then?

+1

Any news about knc miner ASICs chips? Or anything?

I know they're updating it all next week. There is a complete revision on all specs (positive revision), with a more accurate power estimate, which is why they said to hang back on picking up a power brick in that PSU thread yesterday...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2520109

They really should go through these threads and update their FAQ on their site if they can find time - then these threads can calm down a bit

Precisely Minimum Specification promised is 175 gh/s for the Saturn.

Minimum specification for the Jupiter is 350 gh/s.

First line on both respective pages. Only thing that matters.

The 'water-cooled' set-up bit should come off though. That is feasible and they will offer an option for those at home if they want that at a later date, but data centres have in no uncertain terms said absolutely not to housing any liquid cooling.

Forget about all this speculative stuff. If I go to buy a car with a 100 BHP engine, that's what I get. Same with a 2TB hard drive, a 32" waist pair of jeans or a 400g tin of beans. If you don't get what you pay for you would be angry, and rightly so.

In real world engineering, we work in specifications, not speculation. Would you buy a car that 'might' give you 100 BHP? Of course not, you want the figures pinned down tightly as to what you are actually going to get. Yes, you could possibly tune the engine or use Nitrous oxide to 'overclock' it, but both measures might destroy the engine by overstressing it beyond it's design limits.

So demand a proper specification for any miner device - not speculation as to what it 'might' do. If the designers can't give you a proper answer to that question, then you should be very wary. Modern software tools from companies like Cadence can predict very precisely how silicon will behave once manufactured in a particular foundry's process, so as long as the design has been done properly there are NO excuses for not pinning down the specification.

BFL underestimated the power consumption of their asic by a factor of six. This should not have happened, but I suspect they based their figure on an asic process but effectively used an FPGA transfer, using up a lot more gates in the process. On the limited information I have on their device and die size, in a 65nm process they should have a single chip capable of around 11 - 13GH, not 5 -6.