Quote from: Desolator on September 19, 2012, 01:10:05 PM

Quote from: Transisto on September 19, 2012, 07:16:32 AM

Quote from: Desolator on September 19, 2012, 12:32:39 AM

When the first FPGA I saw came out, it was 400MHs and around $600. There was zero competition. To a certain extent, making a chip is making a chip so the fact that these are $149 is amazing. But with 2 more companies breathing down their necks with similar ASICs, tada, it's $149. I'm just saying if those 2 competing companies weren't out there, charging $400 instead of $149 for something that runs at 3500MH/s would be perfectly acceptable to most people so they would. In fact, they could probably get $800.

However you want to phrase it, BFL has always been at the forefront of disruptive product announcement.

You have your cause - effect on pricing backward.

I've read all of your posts here and it's baseless, wrong and speculative all the way.

Did you even take economics in school? With no competition, you can charge the moon. That's cause and effect. If they really get 3500MH/s and let's say a 5830 costs about $115 and typically reaches 320MH/s overclocked, they could charge $1000 and it would still pay off about 20% faster, not counting electricity which is also a huge difference.

But lets say the chips cost $75 to make. Well, some other company comes in and says we don't need a $925 profit. We'll sell them for $700. Then the 3rd company comes in and says we'll sell them for $500 because that's still $325 profit. Suddenly everyone just has a bottom line contest and it ends up at $149. Or one cheats and mines with them to drive the profits up so they can lower the cost and their products are the ones that take off instead of their competition. But like I said, if all they had to compete with were GPUs and their ASICs were the only ones, they could and would charge A LOT of money.

And what exactly is wrong with my mysterious, giant leap of a connection that they made a product to sell to people to make money and mining with that product for a very short period of time would make a lot of money so they're probably doing it, as they do want to make money.

Also, 1 person close to them already confirmed that they're mining with an undisclosed about of hardware at the moment.

Then there's the fact that you really can't send out a product like this without running it for at least a couple hours to make sure it works. Don't want to give your company a bad reputation for like 10% of their products failing in the first week when customers get them. It's a 1st generation experimental product you know.

So where's my break in logic you're talking about?

They've mentioned multiple times that they use their own algorithm for checking to make sure the miners are working. They compute known hashes, and compare the results of the computations with the known numbers to be sure they match up. They specifically stated they do not mine while testing because they do not want their units to attempt to send corrupt or otherwise bad information to the rest of the Bitcoin network.

Quote from: MrTeal on September 19, 2012, 03:10:49 PM

Quote from: Grouver (BtcBalance) on September 19, 2012, 08:30:10 AM

Josh told me that the owner of Butterflylabs has a buissness history of keeping stuff secret and silent.
And he certain doesnt have any experience with posting on a forum or maintaining websites.
Thats why (untill now) stuff has seem so shady and all I guess.

Seriously? The president of BFL got extradited from Italy and sentenced to 26 months in federal prison for mail fraud stemming from a large internet Ponzi scheme. That's a little more than "keeping stuff secret and silent".

Where's the source for that? Haven't heard about that before...