Quote from: CryptoCoin2015 on April 30, 2015, 06:08:55 PM

Quote from: JaredR26 on April 30, 2015, 05:34:32 PM

YOU accused them of dangerous temperatures upwards of 100C based on photos that you didn't even realize was flimsy plastic. As coinits points out, there may even be a bug at fault that neither you nor asicspace knew about that would have Bitmain share the blame here.

I have friggin S5 here at my place, so again: Do not jump to conclusions if you want to appear as someone applying rational thinking. Because you are not, you are assuming again.

Ok. So why did you make claims that it might have been 100C to deform it? You can practically deform it with your hand. By your own admission you must have known this. Why make such claims?

Quote

Quote from: JaredR26 on April 30, 2015, 05:34:32 PM

Since you clearly don't know how to evaluate the damage or the responsible party, your accusations are really just going to make you look like an angry asshole instead of a poor mistreated customer.

Again: assumptions. You neither know my background nor anything else, yet you seem to know it all.

For all I know, you have no idea at all about anything.

I didn't claim to know your background. You literally said "There must have been beyond 100 degrees C." I showed that that claim is completely bogus. People can draw their own conclusions about our respective backgrounds.

Quote

And besides that, you are wrong: A hoster is responsible for the hosted equipment, hence ASICSPACE should have taken action once they recognized the damage. The truth is, ASICCRAP was at no point in time aware of the damage, as they simply had not taken a single look at the machines but rather said something about network issues, slight heat problems etc.

I know this to be at least partially untrue, but it is all secondhand information. However you and I can definitely agree that things weren't handled right, and that this was not how a hoster should treat their customers.

Quote

If this was not about hiding, then it was about incompetence. And what knowledge do we have about systematic S5 failures? Right, none. Bitmain has a faultrate, which is by far below 1% They disclosed this and much more when working on the systematic evaluation of the situation and are doing so right now in Denver.

Right, and it will be good to have their assistance; keeping in mind that they also have a very strong impetus to avoid both the liability for the hardware and the reputation impact that it would have if they admitted any fault such as automatic shut-off temperatures not working. Bitmain are good guys, I know them, but they are also very clever. If Bitmain can avoid reputation impact by pinning 100% of the blame on another party, they will likely do so even if a failure on their side contributed to 20% of the problem or more.

I also know that they run large quantities of their hardware in "datacenters" in China, often under high temperatures and with a build construction that makes Asicspace look like a tier-II datacenter. We are not likely to get the operational data(temperatures) from those places nor the failure rates in them because the numbers won't be good. (The numbers aren't supposed to be good; it is designed to fail and be cheap to replace).

Quote

Does this look like "slight heat problems" to you, if 50% of the boards look like this?

50% of what boards? 50% of the pieces of plastic? I'd say that's rough handling or the result of running in a BTC mine. 50% of the circuit boards have a capacitor blown? Now this would be some useful data. Yes, I would agree that if you have 50% of S5 boards with visible capacitors blown like that I'd agree that you either have a major electrical problem(more likely, although I know the electrical is pretty solid there) or a major heat problem(heat affects chips more than capacitors).

Quote

Ah, you do not need to answer, it does not contribute in any way to the solution of the problem.

What you mean to say is, it isn't helping your angry arguments. Lets just try sticking to the facts, shall we?