Quote from: Bargraphics on August 25, 2013, 06:16:49 PM

Quote from: Ytterbium on August 25, 2013, 06:13:45 PM

Quote from: BitcoinForumator on August 25, 2013, 03:48:04 PM

Quote from: N_S on August 25, 2013, 03:35:57 PM

Quote from: yuansuyi on August 25, 2013, 03:10:54 PM

Quote from: friedcat on August 09, 2012, 08:17:17 AM

Our chips
Generation 1: Block Eruptor. 130nm with 6-8J/GH. Each chip's rated frequency is 336MHz at 1.05V. It translates to 336MH/s because it does one hash per cycle. The chips work stable and well at 392MH/s at 1.15V. Further overclocking needs proper handling of heat and power supply.

Quote from: kslaughter on July 08, 2013, 10:46:58 PM

Our chips in development
Generation 1: Fast-Hash. 28nm. Each chip's rated frequency is 800 MHz at 1.15V. It translates to 16,000 MH/s because it does 20 hashes per cycle. Chip requires proper handling of heat and power supply. It is expected the chip can be overclocked to 1000 MHz @ 20,000 MH/s.

Does....does this mean Ken = friedcat?

Ken = friedcat everyone!! The friedcat's out of the bag! Everyone panic buy!!

Or maybe friedcat just copied ken's template. (Edit: just saw friedcat was 2012, in which case this slightly raises my eyebrow)

Huh. How difficult is it to write a sentence like that without plagiarism? "We're currently developing a 28nm IC, computing 20 double SHA256 hashes per clock, and a design operating frequency of 800Mhz, we expect to see around 16Gh/chip, potentially overclockable to 20Gh/s/chip" . I don't get why you'd even bother to plagiarize something like that.

It this really the type of issue you guys bring up?

These are specs, who the fuck cares how he typed them up?

I'm not saying it's a scam because it's plagiarized, but it is sloppy and unprofessional.