In addition:


This looks AWFULLY familiar.  Where have I seen this?  Oh yeah... on the website of another scammer, BFL:  https://products.butterflylabs.com/600-gh-bitcoin-mining-card.html


In short, I'm calling scam.

That sounds like a good motivation for HashFast to withold hardware and mine.  I'm not saying they will, I'm saying it's something they've got to be factoring into the equation at this point, having already pissed everyone off significantly now.

Nice, thanks for that.  Perhaps you should keep that zipfile up until there are shipped miners, hashing in the hands of customers.  Based on your pictures and videos, I'm thoroughly convinced that this product does exist, and that they have viable means of further production.  I'd recommend that anyone who buys one and is satisfied, also consider giving money to Sushi for his time/effort.

I also agree with the sentiment that Bitmain could release pricing right now; no need to wait.

Put up the raw photos and videos that you used to compose that Youtube vid, that's a good start.

No need to PM you; if you're serious about doing a good service to the community, do it all out in the open.

You can't seem to resist making a bumbling idiot out of yourself, can you?

It does actually.  In addition to my "box of fans" criticism (among others), I happened to notice that the "update" on the Hashfast site with pictures of Ciara's assembly line, currently posted with the November 4th timestamp, was actually pushed out on October 28th.  I happened to have their site still open in a browser with the old version:



More chicanery, more stupidity, and more ammunition for their customers to claim fraud by inducement.  Keep it up.

Are you insane?  By your logic, they finished designing something that beats every other ASIC maker, yet they're keeping that fact a secret.  That makes a tremendous amount of sense.

Anything else you'd like to postulate on?

To be clear, Ciara doesn't owe me a press release.  All I'm saying is that after Hashfast's bumbling marketing bobble-head being caught in multiple lies, I have no reason to believe this is any different. 

lol?


Holy shit you're stupid.  I emplore you to read, and re-read, and re-read... and then re-read what I said some more.  That is, if you're even capable. 



You're an idiot.  No matter how you try to spin it, the fact remains that

1) the pictures posted (with the word "prototype") in their name, are not production pictures.  The proverbial "box of fans" as Mr. Crumbs so elequently put it; a lie indeed.  And,
2) Ciara has yet to state publicly that they have any kind of exclusive agreement with Hashfast.  Just because Hashfast says it, does not make it so.

Now sit down and stfu.  Grown folks are talking.

I don't believe that.  How is it that you got Ciara to tie their own hands and agree not to do business with any other manufacturer of crypto hardware (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "competition")?  I call bullshit.  If your agreement really were exclusive, there would be a statement by Ciara to that effect.  I can find no such statement, and of course there was no official joint press-release.

That ridiculous "box of fans" you posted, should've gotten you guys shot by now.  It's an insult to everyones' intelligence.  With that, and as with so many other things, you people talk a good game, but you still lack proof.  So toss it up.  Prove to us that this agreement which you claim is exclusive, is indeed so.  Lest you look like more of the idiot that I've previously called you out to be.



Thanks for the tidbit.  That's precisely why I said publicly that an engineer should have given that update, not the bumbling bobble-head marketing guy.

tacotime, you seem to be fulfilling your role quite well as a go-between and (hopefully) a community negotiating partner.  Keep up the good work.

Indeed.  I love how they laid the radiators in there with no mounting, as can clearly be seen by the left-most radiator and it's off-flush orientation.  It makes you wonder whether those PSUs are mounted; my money says no.

Hashfast, plz stop lying to the proletariat.  That's not a prototype (because prototypes are designed to be functional; this clearly is not).  That's more like a mock-up, on the order of those done in grade-school with the help of Elmer's glue and construction paper.

That's what happens when a marketing bobble-head is allowed to give engineering-related updates.  I do hope Hashfast will work out a new deal with those of you in Batch 1.  Otherwise, from my vantage point, a missed October 31 deadline (self-imposed, I might add) would trigger the FTC rule requiring either a full refund or a reaffirmation of one's desire to keep waiting. 

p.s.  now you're quoted.  I'm just going to leave this here, in case you (or your handlers) later realize the absurdity of some of the things you've said and decide to edit your post.  Like giving away the "MPP" / "miner protection program" trademark and/or service mark to the community.

Actually, you'll be "committed to issuing full refunds" if you miss the self-imposed October 31 timeline, per FTC rules.  This forum is all too familiar with these rules, having done battle with BFL, PayPal and others.  If anyone should be speaking to an attorney, it's Hashfast.

I don't think enough attention has been paid to the actual update given.  And I think Hashfast customers might be letting them off WAY too easily.  What are these "substrates"?  Are we talking about the silicon substrate of the ASICs themselves?  If yes, their statement would make a lot more sense:


If I understand correctly, the substrate is lost in space, there may be some ETA for it, but they're not telling you what it is.  And whenever they magically receive this substrate, they're going to finish packaging the ASICs and just assume everything went according to plan.  I mean specifically that the PCBs and everything else works the way they're supposed to, which they can't possibly know until they have an ASIC in hand.  Do I have that right?

So set sail for more fail.  At this point they were supposed to have ASICs in-hand, boards completely tested, and starting to ship.  If/when additional problems are encountered with parts external to the ASIC, you can expect more delays.  A quick recommendation to Hashfast: perhaps when you have engineering-related issues, rather than sending out a talking head, you should instead send your engineer to update your customers and address their concerns.

If Hashfast REALLY felt that way, it would guarantee its hardware for a more reasonable timeframe, like 180 days.  It's obvious that the ROI of your products will be either thin, or nonexistant, particularly for those who paid you with BTC.  Don't add insult to injury.  Man up and increase the warranty period, or stop making ridiculous statements.  kthx.

There's been no official statement.  I made the leap, previously in this thread, that it could've been something as stupid as PSUs.  But they won't tell us.  It would certainly stand to reason, since they're apparently using a one-off run of Seasonics with a reversed fan in the newly-designed Sierras.

How about it Hashfast?

You're acting like that's somehow an asset.  It's not.

p.s.  5 posts eh?  How'd you get out of your cage?

That's putting it mildly.  As a result of this design stupidity, it sounds to me like anyone who's already leased or built cabinet colocation for their Sierras has to:

1) Build some kind of duct into the side of the cabinets, to mate up firmly to the side of those cases and carry the exhaust heat to the back of the cabinet,

2) If not #1, then at least some apparatus to "block off" the space between the vertical rack rails and the side of the cabinet, and generally vacuum the entire space through a series of fans,

3) Forego most of the real estate on both sides of the vertical rack rails, which would normally be free and clear to tie down cables, and instead only run cabling subordinate to the construction of apparatus 1 or 2 above,

3a) In either scenario, blocking the front of the cabinet with blanking plates, will be key in most datacenter environments.  If the boxes sucked at the front and blew at the back, exclusively, then blanking plates would be less of an issue.

4) Ditch the cabinets entirely and switch to 2 or 4-post racks.  In leased colo space, this has tremendous implications, as the only way to properly and securely run equipment in those kinds of racks is in a caged space, which probably whacks out the economics of the whole thing.  Aside from that, what if a customer had already paid installation NRCs to a datacenter, thinking they'd need xx KW per cabinet, only to find out that Hashfast has pulled the rug out from underneath them with this re-design to 4U, and thus the quantity of power is halved and some of those already-paid monies are wasted.


Further, since there are apparently no engineering drawings of any of this stuff, as DeathForTaxes and others have called for, it's STILL subject to change.  For a company that holds themselves out as a group of experts, Hashfast seems to be acting like anything but.  It seems to me this could be easily resolved if Hashfast would simply sell what DeathForTaxes is calling "naked" boards.  No need to stop selling the all-in-one solutions, vis a vis the Sierras, but don't handcuff the customers who are trying to put food on their tables and yours.

The word you're looking for is actually "elaborate".

You're looking at me and what you perceive my intelligence to be.  But you ought to be looking at Hashfast_CL.  If this individual does work for Hashfast, why doesn't it bother you that they're giving you privileged information in a PM where any moderator (or any hacker!, as we now know to be the case) can read it?

Are you the pillar of intelligence, or am I?