I finally found a copy of amdvbflash.exe and installed it. I copied the modified rom into the same folder as amdvbflash.exe. I succeeded in unlocking the GPU. However, when I try to flash the modified rom, even though I have carefully created the modified file following your instructions, I get this error:

-f option not supported in external version of the tool. Please refer to tool help for list of option supported
Old SSID: 5701
New SSID: 5701
BIOS authentication signature mismatched.

   ERROR: 0FL01


Any suggestions on how I can flash the modified BIOS?

Thanks for posting these steps, but I am getting hung up on your instruction:

-Type "amdvbflash.exe -unlockrom 0" in CMD screen and press ENTER button.

I've meticulously followed your instructions, but here I am getting the error:

"'amdvbflash.exe' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file."
 
I find this file nowhere on my computer, even though I have installed the AMD RX 5700 XT Windows 10 x64 Driver. What can I do to get "amdvbflash.exe" as a recognized file?

The ruled based action "Stop miner" does not work as expected on any AntMiner S9 in my farm after it has been triggered. The S9 miner simply performs a reboot and begins hashing again about 2 minutes after it was (very briefly) "stopped."

Will someone please provide information as to how I can get this action ("Stop miner") to actually stop the miner, and not simply perform a reboot? Is it possible to stop an S9 miner (using Awesome Miner) at a certain time and then create a second rule to restart the S9 miner later?

I see instructions precisely for this purpose for GPU mining, but not for ASIC, posted here: http://www.awesomeminer.com/help/rules.aspx (See: "Example: Run GPU mining during a specific time"). Thank you.

When will Awesome Miner support the DragonMint T1 through API access in privileged mode? I can only access the DragonMint T1 in "Restricted - No operations allowed" mode.

Is the current "restricted" access limitation due to a lack of the features available in the DragonMint's CgMiner software, or is it a limitation within Awesome Miner?

Is fair and healthy skepticism a "strange" thing? I am the guy who merely observed that a number of odd facts seemed to surround Halong Mining and that the "company" was behaving in an extraordinarily unusual manner, based on widely accepted business norms. Principally, I wrote about: (1) the unverifiability and lack of Halong's incorporation documents, (2) the anonymity of its management and ownership, and the fact that its only known manager goes by a pseudonym, (3) the lack of a physical mailing address, phone number, or registered agent, (4) the mystery of its jurisdiction (country) of operation, (5) the inability for us to hold Halong Mining accountable in a class action lawsuit should Halong put out dangerous or defective hardware and refuse to honor its warranty, (6) the unverifiability of the DM T1's claimed FCC certification, etc., just to name a few of these legitimate concerns.

There are still many unusual circumstances about this company, but I've already made that case in previous posts and won't go into any more detail here for now, unless it becomes relevant again. I'm on record making many fair observations about Halong. This community has given Halong the opportunity to address those concerns, which it hasn't.... Halong's refusal to answer basic, fair questions about itself has undermined its credibility. It's a shame if the company truly wishes to be a legitimate player.

Now the conversation seems to have shifted from Will Halong Mining ever really ship the DragonMint? ... to ... Is the DragonMint's failure rate unacceptably high? .... I'll be curious to watch how Halong Mining behaves in honoring its warranty.

Some would-be customers absolutely do care enough about these lingering, unanswered questions about Halong Mining -- enough not to purchase from it. Others are unconcerned or less concerned. I've been committed to trying to help us all uncover basic facts about Halong Mining and MyRig, Inc., and all of us should care about the truth and make the best decisions possible for each one of us. If an informed buyer wants to buy from Halong, then please have at it.

I agree with your point that buying from Halong Mining "was a gamble", but I can't say I agree with your point that the purchase "has paid off for some people." Products from Batch 1 are just reportedly getting into the hands of purchasers, and we do not know how they will perform or their failure rate. It was not disclosed to us before purchasing that the units may be used only on a limited number of pools (due to AsicBoost), so that was a material fact not advertised that limits their usage. We also do not know if Halong will honor its 6 month warranty or if it will even remain operating for the duration of the warranty period. Halong said the AsicBoost license negotiation was a reason for its pre-release secrecy, but we now see that Halong has continued to maintain its secrecy, so that has not really worked out for those purchasers, including myself, who expected to learn a reasonable degree about the company by now.

Certainly, "Crypto is not the automotive industry," as you pointedly noted, but a number of similarities exist between mining for cryptocurrency and driving an automobile:

(1) Both consume energy that have fire safety considerations that any responsible operator must consider.

(2) Both activities pose a risk to human life, especially if using a defective product.

(3) Consumers of both products must adhere to strict rules and standards when operating them or face significant liability, including fines or imprisonment. Yes, believe it or not, if you negligently operate a miner and burn your and your neighbor's house down, just as if you negligently operate an automobile, you could be guilty of manslaughter if someone is killed due to your negligence. In the case of both products, if you are operating a miner or a car from a totally anonymous manufacturer, the operator assumes a greater degree of liability since the owner is on notice that the lack of accountability or trustworthiness of the seller is a known issue.

(4) Consumers of both products care about the warranties of each, and to that extent, many purchasers care about the credibility of the party issuing the warranty. The more of each product a consumer purchases, the more he or she is going to care about the warranty and the credibility of the issuer of the warranty.

(5) Manufacturers of both products are required under law and long-standing widely accepted business norms to be accountable for their actions, including negligence (e.g., the release of a defective product) or intentional bad acts (e.g., theft of IP, or non-compliance with a patent license).

I genuinely hope it works out for purchasers of the DragonMint, including myself. It might. But then again, it might not. Time will tell. As you noted, buying from Halong "was a gamble." It remains a gamble. Regardless, one fact is inescapable: the more we scrutinize a seller, the more informed we all are -- and the better off we all are. And that is a positive step.

With all due respect, I was not asking you how risky you believe it is to operate a DragonMint.  Silicon is not the only material inside of the DragonMint and its PSU. Other risk factors exist, such as extremely high voltage. Yet the central question from my previous post remains, which you did not answer. Should it be possible in a court of law to hold Halong Mining accountable, if someone has a valid claim against it? Should Halong be held accountable if it negligently released a defective product that posed an unacceptable risk of danger? Of course it should. Every business should be held to account if it acts with negligence or if someone has a valid claim against it. I am not saying that Halong Mining has done any of these things (although the Innosilicon board looks staggeringly similar to that of the DM, see https://i.imgur.com/RgI9Eoy.jpg), but I have a real problem with the public's not having the information needed to sue and recover from someone if valid claims arise. Do you share this concern? If you do, then please realize that to hold a business operator accountable, we have to know, at a minimum, where we can deliver a copy of the lawsuit. That is why businesses are required to have a registered agent who can receive service of process from a court.

Using extremely high voltage is not an activity anyone should take lightly, even if you consider silicon safe. Even low wattage smartphones have been known to burn dangerously due to defective components. The DragonMint operates at 1500 watts, has no FCC certification that I have been able to verify (despite Halong's claim that it exists), and it is the first ever product from a new hardware manufacturer with no track record that insists on operating with total anonymity and impunity.

The mining industry is still young enough and its hardware rare enough that regulators still don't fully understand them. Governments are just starting to wrap their minds around the need for economic regulation of cryptocurrencies. The G20 leaders announced last month that cryptocurrency is on their radar. South Korea weeks ago banned anonymous cryptocurrency accounts. Regulation on the hardware side is just starting to happen too. The U.S. FCC in February sent a cease and desist letter to a home miner in Brooklyn, New York due to a Bitmain Antminer that the FCC believed disrupted a cell phone network. The disruption was so serious that T-Mobile, a U.S. corporation, spent thousands of dollars investigating the source of the interference and finally triangulated the interference to one man's Brooklyn apartment.

If someone in New York or anywhere else can't place a phone call to emergency medical services, for example, because a Bitmain miner is disrupting their cell phone signal, can't we all agree that is an example of a legitimate safety concern? If we learn that Bitmain miners disrupt mobile phone communications to a dangerous degree, and if that disruption is due to a design defect or gross negligence by Bitmain, can't we all agree that Bitmain should assume responsibility for its actions?  If, hypothetically, Bitmain were to try to skirt responsibility, can't we all agree that a court of proper jurisdiction should force Bitmain to assume responsibility? The same should happen to Halong Mining (or any other entity) if for some reason Halong is ever found to have acted with negligence or some other valid claim against it exists.


Collaboration, unity, improved consumer experience, improved performance.... These goals are wonderful. I share them with you. But please realize that "improved consumer experience" requires the possibility that a manufacturer can be held accountable for valid legal claims against it. It doesn't matter who the business is. You don't get to operate with impunity in business under any circumstances.

As for the contact at the URL you provided, the contact information shown on that page is for Little Dragon Technology LLC -- and notes nothing about Halong Mining. I found no evidence that an association exists between these two entities other than Halong Mining says it is a licensor of the patent purportedly owned by Little Dragon Technology. Halong wrote on its blog, "After Little Dragon Technology LLC acquired the patent from the original inventors, we negotiated a license to use AsicBoost in our miners on the understanding that AsicBoost would be opened up to everyone to use, under some form of defensive patent license, in the hopes it can help protect decentralization of Bitcoin mining. " (See: https://halongmining.com/blog/.)

I checked the Statement of Information on file with the California Secretary of State for the entity Little Dragon Technology LLC, and the filing does not note any association between Little Dragon Technology LLC and Halong Mining. To that extent, I am inclined to believe that Little Dragon Technology LLC is simply a shell company with no legal connection to Halong Mining, and that Halong Mining is using the AsicBoost license just as anyone else is authorized to do. The key point is that one cannot successfully sue Little Dragon Technology LLC for valid legal claims against Halong Mining.

Powerful actors exist in many industries who want to mitigate the progress of competitors, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to new market entrants who skirt longstanding international business norms that are designed: (1) to help provide consumer protection and safety, and (2) to help ensure fair dealing in the line of commerce among market participants.

As to safety, consider this analogy. If a new startup pharmaceutical company wanted to take on the big pharma players (who in many cases have monopolies on the treatment of certain conditions due to patent protection), would you risk your or your loved ones' lives and ingest pills from that company, even if you had no idea who they were, who their management was, where they are operating, whether they had a business license, and from where they were sourcing their chemicals? Even if the startup were well-intentioned, if they made an innocent mistake and released a drug that caused serious health problems or birth defects, shouldn't that company be held accountable if it acted negligently or improperly?

The DragonMint from Halong Mining is anlogous in certain respects. A purported "start-up" claims it wants to embark on grand plans to decentralize and take on the massive player, Bitmain. It operates totally anonymously. Even if Halong were well-intentioned, if they made an innocent mistake and released a product that burned down your house or mining operation --- or emitted fumes that caused serious health problems or birth defects, shouldn't Halong be held accountable if it acted negligently or improperly?

I appreciate that the worst experience you've had is seeing thousands of miners with KNC connectors with extremely high failure rates. What if Halong's miners end up having connectors with extremely high failure rates due to negligence during the manufacturing process or a flawed design? And since Halong is totally anonymous, we'd have no way to hold it accountable if Halong choose not to assume responsibility for them. Would you find that acceptable?


Hypothetically, if Bernie had engaged in theft of intellectual property from an ASIC hardware manufacturer, so long as you received your hardware from him and your Bitcoin account is growing, you're good with that? Don't you think Bernie's ASIC manufacturing company should be held to account?


Without a doubt, Halong Mining warrants our legitimate concern and rigorous scrutiny. I've never claimed that anyone is "forcing" me to do anything. My purpose is conclusively illustrating that Halong Mining is engaging in highly questionable business practices, and prospective buyers should proceed with caution and realize that they have no reasonable recourse to hold this "company" accountable should the need arise. In addition, Halong has made claims about the DragonMint that we cannot verify, such as the existence of its supposed FCC certification. Red flags galore, people. Red flags.

That isn't actually how business works. Fulfillment of promises is one part. Allowing yourself and your company to be held accountable for your actions is quite another. You have done everything possible to obfuscate your identity, to operate in a shadowy manner, to evade the reach of regulatory authorities including the judicial system and law enforcement. If a consumer or business has a valid legal claim against Halong Mining, hypothetically, for design defect or theft of intellectual property, you have left no path in which such a claim could be resolved by a neutral third party. That is completely unacceptable in business. No legitimate business operates that way. New paradigm? Nonsense. The paradigm for accountability has not changed. The paradigm for applying for a business license has not changed. The paradigm for disclosing your jurisdiction of incorporation has not changed. The paradigm for having a registered agent who can receive service of process for a valid legal claim has not changed. The paradigm for application of FCC certification when selling to U.S. customers has not changed. Basic standards for legitimate business operation exist internationally. Halong Mining meets none of them and arrogantly dismisses them as "just fluff."

You have claimed an FCC certification of the DragonMint T1, but you provide no evidence of it, and despite best efforts, no one can find it. When questioned in this forum about it, you refused to provide it. The FCC's online searchable database yields no results for it. This troubling discrepancy, coupled with your (1) unknown identity, (2) your unknown jurisdiction of incorporation, (3) your unknown managers, (4) your unknown engineers, (5) your unknown safety compliance standards, make it impossible for any responsible datacenter business to allow the DragonMint T1 to be hosted in its facility without liability shifting to the datacenter should it burn down due to a DragonMint design defect. We do not know who you are, and we cannot hold you accountable. We need to know that you are not crooks, that you've not stolen intellectual party from innocent third parties, that you are above-board players. We need to know that you recognize that these questions are fair game and reasonable to ask of you.

We should all ask ourselves: what exactly is it that Halong Mining has to fear? Why does it refuse to make available such basic information about itself, i.e., the kind of information that legitimate businesses worldwide uniformly provide?

I had genuinely hoped that Halong Mining would step-up, answer these legitimate and lingering questions, and become an above-board player. I am one of your customers (April Batch 2). I impulsively bought many DM units. (My mistake, never again.) I wanted to know I can safely plug them in, and that I am not jeopardizing the safety of others. I also wanted other would-be customers to see the kind of unusual business standards that Halong Mining employs. You said last month that you were operating in such secrecy out of necessity due to sensitive negotiations regarding the AsicBoost patent, but that period has passed now, the cat is out of the bag, and you still refuse to operate above-board. I agree with you about one thing. Consumers will make their own decisions based on the information available on whether to buy from Halong Mining. Unfortunately, your decisions have severely damaged Halong Mining's brand equity before it even completed its first batch delivery.


Convenient. A Telegram Group that you moderate, in which you can censor posts, avoid accountability and legitimate questions, and ban users. No thank you. A number of those users have already reported in this thread that you have removed them from your Telegram Group. This forum is frequented by some of the most reputable, most merited individuals in the crypto community. It also contains others, your customers, including myself. It is interesting that you say you do not monitor this forum, because I have noticed on your Bitcointalk profile page every time I have checked that you have usually logged in within the last few hours. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you engage with the community here in an open, candid way and set the record straight about your company's legitimacy. Answer the kinds of questions that legitimate businesses are happy to answer. On the other hand, your remaining silent on these questions is an answer in and of itself.

Scott, by no means has someone conducted due diligence as it is responsibly performed in business today by reviewing an email attachment of a sales agreement form. At best that is 1% of the process of due diligence.

An illegitimate operator could wholesale copy the best "sales agreement" form on the planet from someone who is legitimate. A Microsoft Word document or PDF proves nothing about the party's legitimacy. Nothing. Conducting due diligence on a company involves much more than reviewing a form they could email you. To "consider the terms" as you said, you have to know who it is you're dealing with. That's why you have to know, at a minimum, the public record of that incorporated entity within the jurisdiction in which it operates. That keeper of records is typically the secretary of state's office (at least for U.S. based companies).

Once you have that information, then you can understand who the parties are, who is its registered agent, where is its principal place of business, where is its registered agent's office, are these offices real places and presently occupied, who are the neighbors at those offices, what do those neighbors have to say about them, where does the business conduct its banking, which law firm represents them, who is their CPA, who are some of their customers, have they made the necessary filings with the government to keep their charter active, have they paid their annual corporate franchise taxes, who are their executive managers, where did those managers work previously, where did they obtain their degrees, what mutual contacts do you have, what do the mutual contacts have to say about them, do the managers have good track records, do the managers have criminal records, do the managers have a history of fair dealing, have they received any recognition by reputable publications.

Once you have answered those questions, then you have scratched the surface of conducting due diligence.

In the case of Halong Mining, we don't even know a real person's name who is an actual employee there. Not one person. This is a company that has supposedly spent $30 million USD in R&D, and there isn't one verifiable engineer or manager who is willing to claim publicly his or her employment with them. How big of a labor force do you think $30 million could buy? Doesn't that strike anyone as even a little strange?

So what? So based on the information that we can learn (or not learn) about Halong Mining and MyRig, people can make informed decisions on whether they are comfortable buying from them. Disclosing the customary information about the incorporators (i.e., who they are, where their principle place of business is physically located, the consumer protections afforded in that jurisdiction) goes a long way towards building (or undermining) consumer confidence.

The onus is on the business to present accurate information about itself to the world. As it stands now, MyRig is inaccurately representing itself to the world when it states on its ToS that its name is "MyRig, Inc." The entity's actual name consists of Japanese letters, not English letters. This may seem like a meaningless technicality to some, but it is actually quite important so that people can reliably conduct due diligence and make informed decisions for themselves.

I have searched everywhere for Halong Mining's incorporation records, guessing at the country in which it is incorporated. I even checked Vietnam to no avail since "Halong" is a city there. This is case in point why presenting accurate information is so important.


It is odd if you consider that MyRig has held itself out as a Colorado corporation (https://i.imgur.com/8WZDWmZ.jpg) using a name ("MyRig, Inc.") that does not exist in the records of Colorado's Secretary of State. MyRig has a receiving address in Colorado at a UPS Store and transacts business there. To that extent, it is required under Colorado law to obtain authorization to conduct business in Colorado as a foreign entity. If it registered, we'd have the ability to hold MyRig accountable using legal process should circumstances justify it some day. If it does not register, then U.S. customers and perhaps customers in other nations should understand the lack of accountability should something go wrong when transacting with MyRig.

HagssFIN, thank you. Getting this information has been like pulling teeth. However, MyRig clearly states on its ToS page that its name is "MyRig, Inc." -- not "マイリグ株式会社", and as far as I can tell, "MyRig, Inc." is not a valid entity. The actual name of the validly incorporated entity is マイリグ株式会社.

MyRig should update its website's ToS to reflect that it is a Japanese corporation named マイリグ株式会社, not a Colorado corporation named "MyRig, Inc." These details are important for accountability purposes. As of the time of this posting, MyRig does not state on its web site that it is a Japanese corporation. It holds itself out as a Colorado corporation, choosing Colorado as the venue and jurisdiction for disputes and requiring the application of Colorado law, not Russian law and not even Japanese law.

In addition, I am still unable to confirm that MyRig or マイリグ株式会社 is authorized to conduct business in Colorado, as it is required to register as a foreign corporation if it is operating there. Otherwise, it is operating in contravention of Colorado law.

I am making no such assumption. I am relying on what MyRig has told us about its legal incorporation status on its very own terms of use page on its web site (see: https://i.imgur.com/8WZDWmZ.jpg). MyRig holds itself out as a Colorado incorporated entity, hence the name "MyRig, Inc."

I even went so far as to check the Japanese government's official incorporation records. You can do so yourself here: http://www.houjin-bangou.nta.go.jp/en/. Just type "myrig" into the "Name" field. Zero results.

That leaves Russia. If MyRig would like to announce that it is a Russian corporation, I would be thrilled to receive this news. I have not checked Russian incorporation records but I would be happy to verify such a claim from MyRig if it would like to make it.

Thank you. This information is listed on MyRig's "Contact" page on its site. Please realize that it demonstrates nothing about MyRig's incorporation status and where it is formally authorized to conduct business. Without this information, everyone must assume that "MyRig, Inc." is not what it claims to be (an incorporated entity), and everyone should be asking themselves why would MyRig make such a misrepresentation. Halong's affiliation with "MyRig, Inc." is not a boost to Halong's credibility. Playing by the rules and accountability are fundamental in business. All of us should stand together to make sure Halong and MyRig understand that if they want to sell to our community.

Please help me make sure I understand you correctly: If someone wants to conduct due diligence on "MyRig, Inc." that person must first buy from MyRig to see the company's official info? That's not reasonable. That's not how it works. The entire point of due diligence is to determine if the company is worthy of doing business with in the first place. In conducting my due diligence, I've relied on the info about its legal status that MyRig has posted on its web site (see: https://myrig.com/terms-of-use). Legitimate operators tend to post their information on such pages, and not wait to disclose it until after the sale. The information MyRig shows on its terms of use page cannot be confirmed with the Colorado Secretary of State. Specifically, I am talking about the fact that "MyRig, Inc." holds itself out as a Colorado corporation, hence the significance of using the abbreviation "Inc." in its name, which carries important legal significance. I've made this point a number of times on this thread, but MyRig and Halong have chosen not to address it, which has raised concerns among would-be buyers and those who bought in the pre-sale, including myself.

I have purchased a number of DragonMint T1 units directly from Halong Mining (April Batch 2). I assure you I am not "just making noise." I have no stake in the game other than to help people make informed decisions and to try to achieve some peace of mind for myself by receiving some info about Halong's legitimacy (or lack thereof).  Halong points to its relationship with MyRig as evidence of its legitimacy, so MyRig naturally should fall under same due diligence umbrella when investigating Halong.

I would love for Halong and MyRig to address these legitimate and lingering concerns once and for all and get on with being above-board operators.

Dear "MyRig, Inc.": You hold yourself out as a Colorado corporation (see: https://i.imgur.com/8WZDWmZ.jpg), but the Colorado Secretary of State, the entity charged with maintaining such records, has no record of you. (Search for "myrig" on this page: http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityCriteriaExt.do?resetTransTyp=Y.) Furthermore, I found no record of your previous name "Bitmain Warranty" either, so it seems this is not just a simple of matter of your not having gotten around yet to filing your paperwork in Colorado to complete a business name change. Bitmain Warranty was never incorporated in Colorado either. Red flag.

The operators of "MyRig, Inc." and Halong Mining should understand and respect that this fact is deeply troubling for the BTC community, and the request for clarification is a reasonable one. Intentionally misrepresenting a business in this manner is fraud. Similarly, please disclose where Halong Mining is incorporated. It's not enough just to ship out miners. We need to know you are not illegitimate operators. These matters should be simple for you to explain. It is long overdue. Thank you.

I've tried to be fair and objective in my criticism of Halong Mining and its unveiling of the DragonMint. I've spent considerable time conducting due diligence on Halong Mining and "MyRig, Inc." I purchased many DragonMints in early January (more than the MOQ). I did so impulsively, being irrationally exuberant when BTC prices were much higher than they are today. I didn't do my usual due diligence on Halong Mining, and that was my mistake. When I became 99% convinced that Halong Mining was a scam and that I'd never receive the miners I bought from them, I immediately wanted to share publicly the results of my research, so I shared my concerns with Unicornflex (a friend, associate, and member of this community), who made the initial post of our concerns. (See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2443327.1260.) We decided this post would perhaps be better received by this community from his account, since he had been a member here for many years, and my account was just created. My only motivation in voicing the results of my research was to help others not get scammed, as I certainly feared I would be.

My opinion about Halong Mining and "MyRig, Inc." has not changed much. There is no question they are shady operators. Because their incorporation cannot be verified, the public has no way to hold them accountable, for example, for design defects or theft of intellectual property (yes, perhaps from Innosilicon -- see https://i.imgur.com/RgI9Eoy.jpg; please note: the origin of this photo is unknown to me, but was shared today on the DragonMint Telegram Group, https://t.me/dragonmint), by someone named @swapman.)

Halong Mining and "MyRig, Inc." don't reply to reasonable inquiries for information about their incorporation or registered agents. Halong Mining claims an FCC certification of its hardware (the DM1) exists, but the FCC has no record of it that I can find. Why wouldn't Halong want to share the details of its FCC certificate if it had one? There are many, many other concerns that I've tried to document in this thread.

Having said that, we know that -ck has done essential, valid work for the community, including, he says, for Halong Mining. He has said he is working remotely on the firmware used by the DragonMint with interesting, positive results. In fact, he has made so many statements in this thread affirming the DragonMint, we have to trust him that this hardware is real, even if it is produced by shadowy figures. It doesn't mean we should place new orders for hardware from Halong Mining. I don't think we should. I do not recommend purchasing from Halong Mining until it discloses who its operators are and where it is incorporated. I would also like to see an FCC registration number of its claimed FCC certificate or other information on where the public can view it. Until Halong Mining discloses this information, understand that if you buy from Halong Mining, caveat emptor, you're buying from people who you cannot hold accountable, so don't count on anything. While I appreciate the confirmations made by -ck, Adam Back, Jan Čapek, and JP La Torre, let's be clear -- they are not warranting anything about the shipment of hardware by Halong Mining. Its operators could disappear at any moment for any reason -- valid or not.

Halong Mining claims that the DragonMint is "the worlds [sic] most efficient Bitcoin miner, operating at 16TH with AsicBoost technology inside for greater power efficiency...."

I decided to do the math and concluded that Halong Mining's claim is true as it relates to power efficiency. The DragonMint is 3.47% more power efficient than the AntMiner S9.  

The DragonMint T1 consumes 1480 watts and achieves 16 Th/s.
16 / 1480 = 0.010810811

The AntMiner S9 consumes 1340 watts and achieves 14 Th/s.
14 / 1340 = 0.010447761

The difference in Th/watt efficiency is calculated as:
0.010810811 - 0.010447761 = 0.00036305

The percent increase in improved performance (measured in terms of Th/watt) from that of the S9 to the T1 is calculated as:
0.00036305 / 0.010447761 = 0.034749035  
0.034749035 / 100 = 3.47%

However, let's compare prices. Right now, you'll pay $980 more for a DragonMint T1 over the cost of an AntMiner S9. That's a 53% premium over the cost of an S9.

Current price for the AntMiner S9 (including PSU) is $1864.00.

Current price for the DragonMint T1 (including PSU) is $2844.00.

Is a 3.47% increase in hashing power efficiency justified by paying a 53% higher price over the S9? How efficient is that? You decide.

I am now convinced that I will receive the DragonMint miners that I ordered in January (Batch 2). The primary reason I believe so is that -ck posted comments in this thread that convinced me. Slush Pool and Jan Čapek's tweets also helped to convince me. (See https://twitter.com/slush_pool/status/977499667985518592 and also https://twitter.com/janbraiins/status/978348386255556608.)

My getting to this place of (qualified) trust in the DragonMint was a long road. I know that -ck is a real person with an established track record. I agree he's done great work for the community, and I trust him. On the other hand, what Halong Mining said -- or, rather, what Halong didn't say -- didn't help me at all.

Having said all of the above, it remains clear that Halong Mining is not operating in the way that legitimate businesses operate for all the reasons I've stated in this thread. Even so, I recognize that, despite all the valid issues many still have with Halong Mining, it may deliver to us a functioning miner. It's a shame that Halong has chosen to operate in this unacceptable manner, because the industry is ripe to see competition against Bitmain. The angst that Halong Mining has caused its customers by outright refusing to provide proof of product, its lack of transparency, and its lack of compliance with business norms is inexcusable. Halong Mining has destroyed its own brand equity. I will absolutely never buy from Halong Mining again.