Being UPS I figured I was basically saying I was in the US lol. I checked their schedule and if it’s less than $1,250 there’s no import fee, unless it’s originating country is Canada. So with the $850 z9 mini there shouldn’t be an import fee through UPS, I think haha
They used “UPS Worldwide Express Saver.” It’s 3 day shipping and I think it was 3× the original shipping cost. It’s crazy that they shipped on the 24th and it’ll get to midwest US by the 27th. I wonder why they went with express shipping I surely didn’t pay for it.
To me, it was quite clear that the hashtag #Z9QA was only for the first batch…
Maybe you expected a Z9QB, Z9QC hashtag, but seriously, if you want to get such detailed infos, even a shareholder can’t obtain…
I think that everybody has noticed the 2 competitors. That means :
- Bitmain has to be carefull the way they disclose infos to public, so to competitors
- By the way, the Bitmain’s monopole issue is no longer a threat.
1 Like
I agree with this. I feel that it is unfair and unhelpful to criticize Bitmain for not doing more and to insinuate the unjustified (afaict) idea that they are somehow cheating or deceiving, when instead we should be thanking them for providing radical transparency upon our request, and encouraging them to do more and better.
I also requested that they do that in personal conversation with Jihan Wu. I did likewise in personal conversation with Alex Ao of Innosilicon. I’m hoping Innosilicon will follow Bitmain’s lead on this.
1 Like
I really appreciate Bitmain (through Nishant) answering these questions so promptly, thoroughly, and respectfully. It looks like to me a potential source of misunderstanding here is the purpose of the transparency. Nishant says that the purpose is to inform potential customers about the likely increases in the hashrate, which is a more acute issue in the early days of shipping a new model or a new batch. But that’s not my purpose in asking! My purpose in asking is to get information which can help us understand at the aggregate level (for the whole Zcash mining network) approximately how much hashpower is coming from which manufacturers/models, and how concentrated ownership and operation of that hashpower is — especially whether Bitmain itself operates ZEC hashpower. Of course, Bitmain’s transparency reports cannot fully answer those questions, but they can provide information which is useful to our thinking about that stuff. So to me, Bitmain ceasing to publish the transparency reports after the initial batch has shipped is disappointing, because I’m just as interested in the data about subsequent batches. I recognize that is a lot of work I’m asking them to go through, and I’m grateful that they’ve chosen to practice this transparency so far.
2 Likes
Looks like Innosilicon is also publishing shipping information for batches: https://twitter.com/Inno_Miner/status/1038030417842987010?s=19
Good that Bitmain set the first example, hopefully others will continue to follow!
4 Likes
Is it sad that I counted? I counted 47
Crap I didn’t see page 3, and since quantity is suspect, and since @ boxalex there were 73 names that have them getting at least 1 A9
2 Likes
I see the quantity blurred out, it’s useless that way without numbers… And without Bitmain continue posting shipping info even more usless. And i won’t hide that i’am still more than disapointed that Bitmain posted only info about the first bach 
2 Likes
@zooko : Bitmain did not meaningfully comply with the request for transparency. They did just enough to project a shallow facsimile of “transparency” at a critical time in the ASIC resistance debate; enough to swing opinion slightly in their favour, i.e. toward delaying or preventing a PoW change.
6 Likes
Totally agree, allready wrote that i’am more than disapointed that they did it only for first batch while i was pretty sure it would continue… However, the other producers actually didn’t even provide that much for whatever batch…
I think by now we can say that the tranparancy request to all producers just … failed!
2 Likes
I’m hopeful that the request won’t prove to be a failure in the long(er) term. If Bitmain and Innosilicon staff attend Zcon1, as we hope they will, we can hash it out in person.
Everyone knows that the Foundation never had any ability to enforce the request, or to pressure the manufacturers to comply. Maybe that will change in the future; we may gain leverage.
1 Like
The only ability to enforce it was to have a credible threat of forking to another algorithm (ZCashco’s call not the Foundation’s). Without that they know they can do what they want. They only care about the money not the project.
4 Likes
+1, totally agree on this one.
1 Like
I disagree, and I find your hostile and suspicious characterization of their motives offensive, and I think that it is harmful to the community.
You can disagree, but the facts speak for themselves. As soon as their foothold was secured, the tune of transparency ended. Not surprised, I actually said this would happen on a couple different occasions. The only offensive thing I am seeing is your blind faith in Bitmain’s words…especially when they were caught making misleading statements not so long ago about hashrate.
https://hacked.com/bitmain-faces-new-accusations-of-secret-mining/
To my knowledge they never came forward to address this and simply went silent about it all. This is not how you earn community trust. You may want to get them to come clean on the discrepancies in their reported hashrate, blocks won, and claims of “not” secret mining, when it’s been covered twice since then showing that does not appear to be true, and they did a fairly good job chasing the details down.
I find it ridiculous you would throw the “offensive” card on probably the most even handed person in the conversation. What is your relationship with Bitmain, and why are you so feverishly quick to defend them without question?
6 Likes
Respectfully, Daira is 100% right and I can’t really understand why you would even try to take the opposing side of the argument. The ASIC manufacturers were able to lobby just enough influential people, yourself included, to tip the scales against ASIC resistance. As a relative outsider at Zcon0, it was fairly obvious to me that there were forces at work behind the scenes supporting the pro-ASIC side, particularly in regards to influencing the Zcash Foundation Community Governance Panel ballot. Instead of discussing the very real threat of mining centralization in the mining workshop, we spent most of the time talking about how an algorithm change wouldn’t be feasible within a short time frame. Perhaps if community members realized how quickly ASIC manufacturers would take over the majority of the hashpower they would have voted differently, or even demanded an emergency fork.
4 Likes
Historically (from my observations), they dont agree much at all
We all knew the difficulty was going to skyrocket, that’s why the lets talk about asics thread accumulated 5k post 180 days-ish
Please post your fud there, you’ll get better results
Im sorry Zcon0 wasn’t fun for you (I wasn’t there)
Ah yes, ignore the substance of my comments and proceed straight to character attacks. Nothing I have ever posted is disinformation or inaccurate in any way, which is what you’re accusing me of when you say “FUD”. All information I post on here in regards to mining is completely accurate.
I never said it wasn’t fun, it was the most fun I’d had in a long time. You missed a great conference and some pretty good Karaoke performances afterwards. But there was already an attitude of “oh well, ASICs are already here so why bother” in regards to any PoW algorithm change, or even just adjusting the parameters of Equihash. A representative from Innosilicon even stated publicly during the mining workshop that new ASICs could be developed within a few months, which I also think was a bluff intended to reinforce the feeling that nothing could feasibly be done to preserve ASIC resistance.
3 Likes