Quote from: HashFast_CL on December 14, 2013, 12:45:08 AM

Quote from: RoadStress on December 13, 2013, 10:47:50 PM

Quote from: itod on December 13, 2013, 10:01:46 PM

Am I the only one to find this HF bragging about speed increase insulting to intelligence? @HF_CL: It is totally irrelevant if chip hashes at 300, 500 or 700 GHs. It will mine >50% of it's lifetime returns in the first 2 months or less of it's total mining life. The position of these 2 months on the timescale determine the total value of the product, so the only important thing for all of us about your product is it's shipping date. Correction: other important thing is shipping speed, since it can also mess with a few days of mining. Hashing speed is totally irrelevant, since 25% increase is worthless because it is negatively compensated at least that much when difficulty increases >25% every 11 days. I know there's no way you don't understand these simple facts, so yours "Wov, 550GHs!" makes me really offended. Do you really think you are dealing with idiots?

What i don't understand is the bragging while they only got 2 cores out of 4 to work. I know that it's easy to multiply by 2 the speed that you got with 2 cores and they may get that speed, but bragging without actually having a proof is just lame and sad.

Roadstress,

Per Eduardo, all 4 Golden Nonce "cores" (dies actually) are working to produce the announced 500GH/sec speed.

Our next blog post will elaborate on the details.

itod,

The promised mining speed of 400GH is what HashFast's customers paid for.

Exceeding that advertised minimum by a whopping 100+ GH (25%) is highly relevant to their ROI, regardless of difficulty.

If we only shipped 300GH instead of 400GH, I'm sure HashFast customers would find that anything but "totally irrelevant."

...

Of course the sooner we ship the better, and we anticipate meeting the Dec 31 deadline for Batch 1.

Best,

-HF_CL

I don't believe it until i see it.