@grinminer1 why are you picking solely on Obelisk when the shipment issue is also with Innosilicon?
You clearly are a shill for Innosilicon. Evidence is:
Your profile was created the same day @asic_king posted their C32 miner specs.
Every single one of your post has been derogatory towards Obelisk.
If you are truly a Grin supporter, you should acknowledge that Obelisk is helping the Grin community:
Obelisk is donating up to $1000/unit for Grin development; Innosilicon is keeping all the profits for itself
Obelisk is capping the number of units shipped; Innosilicon doesn’t care
Please go to the bitcointalk.org and direct your shill efforts to slag the Bitmain S17 and promote your Innosilicon T3. Tell Gordon and Alex Ao that they are welcome to comment on this forum but to follow the rules of conduct.
In case you are wondering what shill means, please see below. Or perhaps I should add your name to Urban Dictionary as an example?
Definition: shill - *noun
A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the [pretense], when in fact he is being paid for his services.
You’re free to have whatever opinion you want of me, no matter how unfounded it is. David came in here responding to me so I responded back. That’s it.
I think it’s odd that Obelisk pretends to be so righteous when they’re selling the same unprofitable preorders that Inno is. Also while they’re still delivering late shipments from their last unsuccessful miners.
Obelisk’s units have profitability assuming Innosilicon doesn’t move forward. Without disclosing production volumes, Innosilicon cannot say the same thing. Obelisk announced first, has better specs, lower costs, limited and disclosed manufacturing quantities, and Obelisk has been openly discussing the architecture of its machine.
To that end, we’re not sure why we should be the ones backing down.
One thing that would be pretty amazing is if Obelisk, Innosilicon, and other manufacturers could come to some sort of mutual agreement for moving forward in a way that ensures everyone comes out ahead.
I don’t see that happening, but we’re more than willing to discuss.
I believe, though I can’t be certain, that Obelisk has the lowest cost basis for producing hashrate. As long as NRE can be covered, Obelisk is willing to supply chips to everyone, including Innosilicon, under some open agreement. We’re also willing to consider alternative routes forward.
Obelisk is committed to doing what’s best for the Grin community, and we believe that means getting ASICs out, and as much as possible getting ASICs into as many hands as we can, at a price where the ASICs stand a strong chance of seeing ROI.
I don’t think it’s Inno’s responsibility to limit their production or disclose production targets. They are selling hardware, people can buy it or not. Quoting ROI numbers is a fools errand as no one knows what the price will be tomorrow let alone next month or next year. Mining is and should be an arms race. If you can sell miners that are guaranteed to ROI then the system is broken.
As a customer, if you don’t know how many units are being manufactured, you are taking the manufacturer completely on faith that they didn’t oversell and overproduce. It’s bad incentive alignment.
For example, we saw that with Bitmain’s production of Sia machines. There were more people who were interested in buying a machine than there was block reward to ensure that they could all ROI. Bitmain sold more machines than was possible to achieve ROI with, and that was to Bitmain’s benefit. As long as they can sell another machine at high margin, why wouldn’t they?
As a result, all of their customers got burned. If Bitmain had been disclosing manufacturing volumes and order sizes, people would have realized as the sales pipeline filled up that they were approaching unsustainable territory, and would have stopped at a more reasonable total volume of units.
If you are a buyer of machines, you need to care about how many machines the manufacturer is making. Each machine that they make reduces your revenue, but each machine they make increases their own profits.
If you are a buyer of mining hardware, you should not buy from a manufacturer that is not disclosing production volumes, because their incentive is to screw you over. They make more money the more that their buyers get screwed.
I completely agree. @Taek and Obelisk live in a fantasy world where all companies cooperate with one another and none of them hurt one another. In the real world, it’s a free market and companies are free to do what they want and when they want to do it, as long as it’s legal.
The fact of the matter is that Innosilicon will beat them to market and neither miners will likely be profitable long term. End of story. And Obelisk doesn’t get to pretend to be better than Innosilicon because they’re both doing this.
Quite sure. The Bitmain unit was obsolete pretty much by March, but the fork didn’t happen until October. Bitmain’s unit was substantially worse than the Obelisk unit, enough that Obelisk would have made them obsolete without the fork, but even without the competition Bitmain had overproduced enough that the Obelisk unit wouldn’t have been profitable, let alone the substantially more energy hungry Bitmain miner (almost 2.5x energy consumption for a 25% hashrate boost).
There’s a difference between trying to build the world that we would like to live in and acknowledging the world that we do live.
I don’t know, at least Obelisk is actively discussing and trying to find solutions where everyone can win.
That’s definitely not set in stone. Remember the Innosilicon Decred unit, where the actual hashrate was close to 1/2 of what the firmware engineers were claiming prior to it shipping? Remember the dragonmint unit, which shipped late? Remember the Ethereum unit, which never shipped at all?
People are pretty eager to give Inno the benefit of the doubt and heap skepticism on Obelisk, but a large part of that is because Obelisk is willing to acknowledge it’s past and willing to be transparent about its present and future.
Interesting, for sure this will prompt some of us to take a closer at Inno’s execution and tactics. The Obelisk rollout for Sia is already well documented.
For Inno, they recently acknowledged they were doing self mining ahead of deliveries to customers. And did acknowledge the A10 never shipped.
So perhaps there is more transparency now. For the buyers who are waiting for their A10 or never ROI’ed because of any self-mining, they can decide if this is nothing more than a free market dynamics.
The fact remains that you admit neither miner will be profitable and, IMO, both companies are toxic to their customers for selling unprofitable preorders. On the plus side, you are publicly admitting Obelisk GRN1 will not be profitable so folks can’t say they weren’t warned.
People are skeptical of Obelisk because you’ve never delivered an iteration of miners, expansion boards, etc. on time. Additionally, anyone on your Discord knows there are still folks with missing orders and faulty hardware.
you people should stop this silly childish war and let the free market do it’s job.
First, all of your theories are false because no one knows Grin value and crypto market at the release of the miners.
If grin value or fiat price is 10$ or above, everything is profitable from Gpus to Asics.
To achieve 10$ or above (hoping 50$ why not), ASICS, competition, high graph network are required. If GRN1 Asic is doing 5Grins per day, i cannot see the price of grin staying sub 3$.
The guy saying ok instead of buying an Asic ill just purchase grins and hold, well NO because if no one purchases asics the price wont go up with GPU markets only.
my 2 grins. chill and relax, let the asics compete.
For lots (presumably rigs) to be delivered in July, it must mean silicon in June, which means they are taped out. For that performance it cannot be a planar-silicon technology. It has to be finFET, which means the cycle time in the fab is much longer.
So fundamentally, nothing is congruent.
If I am missing something, can someone from Inno and Obelisk comment.
And please skip the bashing of the grammar. I would bet their English is better than our Chinese, Russian or whatever native language they use. …peace on earth.
I believe the network hash rate includes C29 as well.
@asic_king@Taek Do you guys have any insight to this? While the GRN1 and G32 performance seem to be somewhat in the realm of possibility, this third unknown player has emerged with promises of almost double the performance.
Also strange is the scaling…50GPS@150W, 560@1500W., 11.2X…however for C32 that scaling is only 10X.
Hashrate follows price, not the other way around. The price is determined by how many people want to buy and hold the token, not by the amount of hashrate that’s powering it.
My guess is that it’s fake. Who is Vidtoo? Do they even have a website? Have they taped-out? (The answer needs to be yes if they are shipping in July). How many machines are they manufacturing?
If it were some company that had shipped mining ASICs before I wouldn’t be so quick to call them fake.
Your conclusion that this user is a shill for Innosilicon ignores the possibility (if not a likelihood) that the user is simply a former customer of Obelisk.
It’s true that Innosilicon has delivery issues and is no saint.
But Obelisk stands out by not having delivered any single delivery unit to specification or on time. The company also stands out for making promises for refunds and then changing it’s mind later. Finally, the company stands out by telling a court that it’s DCR sales were a “Kickstarter Campaign.” (recording here
No, one does not need to be a shill for Obelisk to take issue with the statements of Obelisk officials. The thousands of former customers of Obelisk are far more effective at evaluating their practice than a shill for a competitor.
Don’t fib, David. It’s more honest to say that Obelisk is marketing transparency and conservative shipping dates, but by contract you’ve required your customers to give up all rights to any late delivery or tech specifications and Obelisk has absolved itself of all liability.
