Talk:Mining hardware comparison

From Bitcoin Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2010 • 201120122013 • 2014


Listing of hardware that can only be pre-ordered should be discouraged. Listing of vaporware should be disallowed. In either of these cases, if you have editing capabilities, consider removing the listing. While everyone should do their due diligence before making a purchase - especially in pre-order cases - we can all help to keep things a bit more tidy by only having a comparison of actual, existing hardware that ships now or has shipped in the past.

If there is disagreement on the above, perhaps we can agree to have a separate section for pre-orders and vaporware, which could then carry an additional warning. Open for discussion :) TheRealSteve (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Why was my hardware removed?

If your hardware was removed from the mining hardware comparison list, this section will attempt to explain the possible reason why - though always check the edit summary (see "View history") for pointers.

Although there is no set policy for allowing or disallowing hardware to be listed in the hardware comparison at this time, it is generally frowned upon to list hardware that doesn't exist (yet) - which may subsequently be deleted by anybody with editing rights to this wiki.

The "innocent until proven guilty" approach does not work in this field, due to the many bad actors that will take advantage of such an approach. As a result, the approach is that any listing is treated at first as benign and discussed (here or in online forums) until an apparent consensus is reached. At that point, your listing may have been relegated to a "guilty until proven innocent" status.

The community cannot always prove a bad actor. For example, if you have renders of miners on your website/in your store, but no actual photos, you can always claim that the images you use are just stand-ins and that you can't release any actual photographs yet because the hardware is being finalized and so forth and so on. At that point, however, it is essentially non-existent hardware that should not be listed. If, on the other hand, there is actual hardware on hand, there's little reason to be using renders.

The onus is thus on you you to attempt to prove that you are not a bad actor. There's plenty of ways in which you can do so:

  • If you are taking pre-orders: don't - a comparison between existing hardware and hardware that effectively doesn't exist, is no comparison at all.
  • Rather than providing renders or photoshopped images, provide actual photography of your hardware. The more photos, the better.
  • If you are integrating a 3rd party's chip, specify which chip. If you are integrating your own chip design, try to provide details on its design.
  • If challenged in online discussion platforms to show it hashing, provide a video of the hardware mining with a verifiable (public) pool statistics page.
  • If currently only accepting Bitcoin payments, consider adding other payment options - PayPal, credit card, etc. If these are not an option, or not desirable, consider adding a trusted escrow agent option.

These are options that range from simple to more involved in terms of effort, while each significantly raises the bar for still being called a bad actor.

Ultimately, you may have to have a third party review one of your miners in order to build your credibility. This could be one of your customers, or it could be a trusted member of online discussion forums, or popular hardware review websites. This does not necessarily require you to send hardware for free - making it available 'on loan' is also perfectly acceptable, as would be demonstrating in person. While certainly the option that requires the most effort (and possibly expenses), this does increase your reputation as being a good actor not just for that particular hardware, but any other hardware you may be selling, which may make this option a good step as a business going forward.

If at any point you dispute a removal, your first step should be to simply add your hardware back to the list, and the second step should be to open up dialog through this talk page, by using the "Add topic" link at the top to start a new discussion, or simply reply to an existing discussion that pertains to your case. If you provide good arguments as to why your listing should remain, it is unlikely to be removed again. TheRealSteve (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

StickMiner section

There should be a stickminer section. Geremia (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree - and I'll probably get to doing that after I'm done messing around with the ASICs stuff. - TheRealSteve (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is this list: Bitcoin Talk Forum - Ezeminer 9:46 1 April 2015 UTC

I know, it's mine ;) The BitcoinTalk Forum was the best place to put that information when I posted it - slowly but surely, I think the wiki is becoming that place. I'll move it over at some point, but not any time soon. I'll probably keep the thread around in a slimmed down version. TheRealSteve (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Funny I thought that was by a different user :D - Ezeminer 20:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Well obviously there's only one TheRealSteve, the others are TheFakeSteves! *googles name* scratch that, there's at least 7 of me :( TheRealSteve (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorting does not work for the table

The table has

class="wikitable sortable"

set, yet it isn't sortable. Pasting the table's code to the WikiMedia sandbox shows that it does allow sorting there, but not here on Bitcoin wiki. Geremia (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that earlier as well. I think the javascript that enables sorting is missing altogether. Might raise this on IRC :) TheRealSteve (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
This has since been fixed :) TheRealSteve (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, cool! I always assumed it was just me. Great to see that working! Taras (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)