Quote from: gmaxwell on December 04, 2013, 06:50:57 AM

KnC's inability to tell a consistent story was one of the reasons I happily chose to not to business with them. They've clearly stated both before and after product production that it was a structured asic run, and their power results support it. Ultimately it doesn't matter if they used crackerjack boxes to make their masks, at the end what matters is the specs and they're a mixed story. I mean, sure, feel free to not care. But a 2x increase in operating cost, and thermal load is not "a few watts", especially for those of us not interested in a high risk gamble involving mining for a few months and then throwing the hardware out.

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 04, 2013, 12:19:04 AM

even in a datacenter Three antminer S1 are is faster than a KNC jupiter, and I believe they take up less space (if not less, it's close I don't have the dimensions of the KNC handy). yea, sure they involve more chips... but they are low power so they can reach reasonably high chip density in a single unit.

I am not sure what KnC did or didn't do that caused you to be so negative about them. I remember you accused them of mining with customer's hardware just before they start shipping their first batch of ASIC system. But I wonder who is the one who has problem telling a consistent story. The Antminer S1 are 2W/Gh (at the wall), versus 1W/Gh for KnC (Oct Batch pre-0.98 firmware), and yet you are railing against the "inefficiency" of KnC and the 2x operating cost/thermal load while suggesting the more power-hungry antminer is better because they are low power?