I beg to differ on that. Firstly it is not a design limitation, it is a flaw in design with resulting defect which impacts performance. Legal definition: A design defect means that the product was manufactured correctly, but that there is something in the way the product is designed that makes it dangerous/unusable to consumers. Since the design defect is a flaw in how the product is designed, the defect generally affects the entire product line, rather just one particular item.
This defect impacts all 10x series cards, I have seen this with 1060 and p106 mining as well as my 1070. Never had this issue with AMD RX cards after AMD fixed with blockchain drivers. It appears to be inherent in Pascal architecture. NVIDIA created P106 mining cards, so why market these cards for specific purpose without been transparent about a design limitation? In my book that is called misrepresentation and misleading claims if they knowingly designed a product with a limitation but failed to inform potential users of that limitation which would directly impact the users ability to make an informed choice on the product at the point of sale - ie to purchase a competitor like AMD that does not suffer from such issues.
There are only 2 outcomes, either NVIDIA knew about the issue (by way of design limitation or in my opinion design flaw) but failed to be transparent and tell potential customers about the impact which is misrepresentation/misleading or they did not know in which case this an inherent defect in the product and it is not fit for purpose and of unsatisfactory quality. Either way NVIDIA are liable.
Im sure the majority of users like me would agree - had we been made aware of this at the time of purchase and had NVIDIA been transparent, then we would have rather opted to purchase AMD cards for longevity.