While you are clearly unbiased, meh.
This really feels like the beginning of another HashFast thread.
Topic: 0.19 J/GH - CoinBau looks for investors in German mining technology - page 4. (Read 22388 times)
August 16, 2014, 07:38:52 AM
August 16, 2014, 07:31:27 AM
In an MPW run you have only a few chips per wafer and, thus, the costs per chip are pretty high and dominate everything. Since the production of a wafer takes 2 months or more, in March or April we wouldn't have been able to get a return of investment with this first gen hardware. We would have needed a full mask tapeout but did not want to waste the money on an old technology when our 2nd generation was nearly final.
Best regards,
Markus
How many gen-1 chip used in the 1.8TH/s machine?
How many 1.8TH/s machines you have made?
What is the die size of gen-1 chip?
How many chips have you get back from your MPW run?
You tape out in August and you have the chip in hands in the early of this year, why not make a full mask? It will get the investment returned if you tape out full mask in the Jan or Feb. Are OP's team smart enough to make the chips but stupid enough cannot calculate an ROI?
Those 1.8TH/s miners built in rack have to be out of a full mask production. However, OP don't have the access to the full mask.
I repeat, this project is a scam.
Dude youre retarded, I urge everyone to ignore this shitposter, he/she is just another armchair expert with a obvious chip (no pun intended) on shoulder.
To clarify their August Gen1 chips have nothing to do with masks, speed, power as advertised in this thread. These were obviously stated as 28nm first gen chips (which is amusing since another company claims to be the first with 28nm implementation), horserider is clearly austistic.
August 16, 2014, 06:41:44 AM
In an MPW run you have only a few chips per wafer and, thus, the costs per chip are pretty high and dominate everything. Since the production of a wafer takes 2 months or more, in March or April we wouldn't have been able to get a return of investment with this first gen hardware. We would have needed a full mask tapeout but did not want to waste the money on an old technology when our 2nd generation was nearly final.
Best regards,
Markus
How many gen-1 chip used in the 1.8TH/s machine?
How many 1.8TH/s machines you have made?
What is the die size of gen-1 chip?
How many chips have you get back from your MPW run?
You tape out in August and you have the chip in hands in the early of this year, why not make a full mask? It will get the investment returned if you tape out full mask in the Jan or Feb. Are OP's team smart enough to make the chips but stupid enough cannot calculate an ROI?
Those 1.8TH/s miners built in rack have to be out of a full mask production. However, OP don't have the access to the full mask.
I repeat, this project is a scam.
August 16, 2014, 06:38:37 AM
THIS IS A SCAM AS OP IS LYING
The OP stated that he is doing MPW, but he present us a full rack of miners.
MPW will only provides tens of chips, which is not enough for build so many miners.
If the OP is capable of doing a full rack of miners, he must be doing a full mask. he would have been able to produce thousands of miners.
Even if OP has taped out the MPW and get back the sample chips, we are pretty sure that he will scam his minority shareholders without any mercy as he are now using untruthful evidence to attract investment.
The OP stated that he is doing MPW, but he present us a full rack of miners.
MPW will only provides tens of chips, which is not enough for build so many miners.
If the OP is capable of doing a full rack of miners, he must be doing a full mask. he would have been able to produce thousands of miners.
Even if OP has taped out the MPW and get back the sample chips, we are pretty sure that he will scam his minority shareholders without any mercy as he are now using untruthful evidence to attract investment.
In a MPW run you can choose to buy extra sites on the die or extra wafers to get more chips. For a limited production run it makes a lot of sense.
Do you really have to adopt this tone and attack a third party when you're own knowledge is clearly lacking? Although I have my doubts about the ability of this company to produce a chip with the power consumption they claim and have concerns about the validity of their business plan I certainly wouldn't call them a scam and I think anyone that does so is either incredibly ignorant or simply doesn't want new companies to get a chance to compete.
You are not aware of the expensiveness of extra sites to support a full rack of miners. MPW will cost you less in tapeout, but no one who want to use thousands of chips will get the chip supplied by "extra site".
You are an obvious example of why so many people get scammed.
Holly shit that they can do a 0.6J/GH chip in the last year and they would not do it in this year, if they have full mask in hands.
August 16, 2014, 06:04:06 AM
THIS IS A SCAM AS OP IS LYING
The OP stated that he is doing MPW, but he present us a full rack of miners.
MPW will only provides tens of chips, which is not enough for build so many miners.
If the OP is capable of doing a full rack of miners, he must be doing a full mask. he would have been able to produce thousands of miners.
Even if OP has taped out the MPW and get back the sample chips, we are pretty sure that he will scam his minority shareholders without any mercy as he are now using untruthful evidence to attract investment.
The OP stated that he is doing MPW, but he present us a full rack of miners.
MPW will only provides tens of chips, which is not enough for build so many miners.
If the OP is capable of doing a full rack of miners, he must be doing a full mask. he would have been able to produce thousands of miners.
Even if OP has taped out the MPW and get back the sample chips, we are pretty sure that he will scam his minority shareholders without any mercy as he are now using untruthful evidence to attract investment.
In a MPW run you can choose to buy extra sites on the die or extra wafers to get more chips. For a limited production run it makes a lot of sense.
Do you really have to adopt this tone and attack a third party when you're own knowledge is clearly lacking? Although I have my doubts about the ability of this company to produce a chip with the power consumption they claim and have concerns about the validity of their business plan I certainly wouldn't call them a scam and I think anyone that does so is either incredibly ignorant or simply doesn't want new companies to get a chance to compete.
August 16, 2014, 05:03:06 AM
THIS IS A SCAM AS OP IS LYING
The OP stated that he is doing MPW, but he present us a full rack of miners.
MPW will only provides tens of chips, which is not enough for build so many miners.
If the OP is capable of doing a full rack of miners, he must be doing a full mask. he would have been able to produce thousands of miners.
Even if OP has taped out the MPW and get back the sample chips, we are pretty sure that he will scam his minority shareholders without any mercy as he are now using untruthful evidence to attract investment.
The OP stated that he is doing MPW, but he present us a full rack of miners.
MPW will only provides tens of chips, which is not enough for build so many miners.
If the OP is capable of doing a full rack of miners, he must be doing a full mask. he would have been able to produce thousands of miners.
Even if OP has taped out the MPW and get back the sample chips, we are pretty sure that he will scam his minority shareholders without any mercy as he are now using untruthful evidence to attract investment.
I have actually seen these miners first hand (noisy as fuck), if you read their posts fully you would understand that they taped out and implemented miners in August last year on their gen1 designs. The veracity of your post indicates either a vested interest in calling asicrising liars or you are off your meds.
August 16, 2014, 04:57:02 AM
As someone who in early March visited Holger and Sebastian I can honestly say these guys are the future of Bitcoin mining. Most companies will promise you the sun and everything under it, what surprised me about Asicrising but was what they didn't promise. They didn't make promises with regard to delivery, or speed and power, but rather they were very conservative, they would rather be honest than promise the earth.
I decided about 3 months ago to abandon my own endeavours in buying and investing bitcoin hardware but if I had to choose a company and team; Asicrising would be No.1 on my list
I decided about 3 months ago to abandon my own endeavours in buying and investing bitcoin hardware but if I had to choose a company and team; Asicrising would be No.1 on my list
August 16, 2014, 02:40:43 AM
Plus the fact that we already had promises from BITMINE.ch for a 0.3W/GH and we all know how that ended up.
August 15, 2014, 10:09:13 PM
THIS IS A SCAM AS OP IS LYING
The OP stated that he is doing MPW, but he present us a full rack of miners.
MPW will only provides tens of chips, which is not enough for build so many miners.
If the OP is capable of doing a full rack of miners, he must be doing a full mask. he would have been able to produce thousands of miners.
Even if OP has taped out the MPW and get back the sample chips, we are pretty sure that he will scam his minority shareholders without any mercy as he are now using untruthful evidence to attract investment.
The OP stated that he is doing MPW, but he present us a full rack of miners.
MPW will only provides tens of chips, which is not enough for build so many miners.
If the OP is capable of doing a full rack of miners, he must be doing a full mask. he would have been able to produce thousands of miners.
Even if OP has taped out the MPW and get back the sample chips, we are pretty sure that he will scam his minority shareholders without any mercy as he are now using untruthful evidence to attract investment.
August 15, 2014, 02:29:36 PM
To have mining profits, you need to have hardware. You don't have spare cash for hardware, and lowering the J/GH isn't a silver bullet, so I don't see what this magic plan is all about.
I guess you are assuming that the tape-out costs for 28nm are about $15M?
Sorry, but these costs should not be higher than $2.5M. So they would still have $12.5M to produce probably more than 20PH with the raised money. Or did I get something wrong?
If production costs are $1/gh how can they produce/deploy 20ph for $12m?
I'm surprised so many people are assuming this is a legit company based on the lousy proof provided. I wouldn't be surprised if this was an offshoot of the MAT scam.
I think most people just don't care enough to demand they prove their company is legit because the offer is so lousy.
Marcus said that a potential retail price would be below $1/GH, but they are currently not planning to go to the retail market.
So far he said nothing about their productions costs.
My personal opinion is, it would not make sense to start such a project with production costs above $0.5, because than they would not be competitive even with a much better energy efficiency.
August 15, 2014, 02:24:00 PM
Well, yes. That is the reasonable estimate everyone keeps repeating. hashfastisawesome spent 8M only for the tapeout, but that's another story (and I was confused by it).
Anyway the problem still stand: you won't get 15% of the market starting with the returns of 10PHs (that at this point I assume are paid for).
Anyway the problem still stand: you won't get 15% of the market starting with the returns of 10PHs (that at this point I assume are paid for).
They are saying that they made a concrete plan how to reach 15% based on worst case assumptions for development of the global hashrate and the BTC exchange rate. There are not much details about that in their investment document. If you want to know more, you have probably to contact them directly.
August 15, 2014, 02:12:04 PM
To have mining profits, you need to have hardware. You don't have spare cash for hardware, and lowering the J/GH isn't a silver bullet, so I don't see what this magic plan is all about.
I guess you are assuming that the tape-out costs for 28nm are about $15M?
Sorry, but these costs should not be higher than $2.5M. So they would still have $12.5M to produce probably more than 20PH with the raised money. Or did I get something wrong?
If production costs are $1/gh how can they produce/deploy 20ph for $12m?
I'm surprised so many people are assuming this is a legit company based on the lousy proof provided. I wouldn't be surprised if this was an offshoot of the MAT scam.
I think most people just don't care enough to demand they prove their company is legit because the offer is so lousy.
August 15, 2014, 02:11:17 PM
Well, yes. That is the reasonable estimate everyone keeps repeating. hashfastisawesome spent 8M only for the tapeout, but that's another story (and I was confused by it).
Anyway the problem still stand: you won't get 15% of the market starting with the returns of 10PHs (that at this point I assume are paid for).
Anyway the problem still stand: you won't get 15% of the market starting with the returns of 10PHs (that at this point I assume are paid for).
August 15, 2014, 02:04:03 PM
To have mining profits, you need to have hardware. You don't have spare cash for hardware, and lowering the J/GH isn't a silver bullet, so I don't see what this magic plan is all about.
I guess you are assuming that the tape-out costs for 28nm are about $15M?
Sorry, but these costs should not be higher than $2.5M. So they would still have $12.5M to produce probably more than 20PH with the raised money. Or did I get something wrong?
August 15, 2014, 01:52:12 PM
To have mining profits, you need to have hardware. You don't have spare cash for hardware, and lowering the J/GH isn't a silver bullet, so I don't see what this magic plan is all about.
August 15, 2014, 01:34:14 PM
So you want $15M to tapeout a new fantastic chip that will run at less than 0.2J/GH and will have an online cost of less than $1/GH. Fine, I can believe that.
The problem is that you want to take 15% of the market with it. How? As of now 15% of it is 30PH, and will be possibly 60PH by the time you are ready. By considering an online cost far lower than $1/GH ($0.5/GH), you would have to spend $30M...
How?
The problem is that you want to take 15% of the market with it. How? As of now 15% of it is 30PH, and will be possibly 60PH by the time you are ready. By considering an online cost far lower than $1/GH ($0.5/GH), you would have to spend $30M...
How?
They explain it here https://coinbau.com/files/cb_investment_brochure_web_en.pdf
Short version
- $15M for tape-out and first batches of 2nd gen miners
- reinvest mining profit to produce additional 2nd gen hardware to reach/keep 15%
- reinvest mining profit to develop and produce 14nm 3rd gen hardware
August 15, 2014, 01:00:13 PM
So you want $15M to tapeout a new fantastic chip that will run at less than 0.2J/GH and will have an online cost of less than $1/GH. Fine, I can believe that.
The problem is that you want to take 15% of the market with it. How? As of now 15% of it is 30PH, and will be possibly 60PH by the time you are ready. By considering an online cost far lower than $1/GH ($0.5/GH), you would have to spend $30M...
How?
The problem is that you want to take 15% of the market with it. How? As of now 15% of it is 30PH, and will be possibly 60PH by the time you are ready. By considering an online cost far lower than $1/GH ($0.5/GH), you would have to spend $30M...
How?
August 15, 2014, 12:24:29 PM
I find 3 years a very long period in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
3 months sounds more reasonable.... August 15, 2014, 12:09:28 PM
Glad to see the focus on designing the lowest power chips, in the long run these are the only ASICs that will succeed. That said the J/GH/s ratio is only one part of what is required. The other significant factor is finding locations in low electricity cost regions.
For example if you have a chip twice as efficient but located in a region with electricity costs three times higher than lower cost regions, you are still at a disadvantage. Take California, we pay $.35/KW in the upper tier while other states to our north pay around $.07/KW, which is more than a 4x difference. Germany and the EU also have high electricity costs.
So assuming you build these, where are you sourcing your datacenter locations? Finding low cost electricity is just as important as chip design, but there are a limited number of fixed options to find the best spots globally.
For example if you have a chip twice as efficient but located in a region with electricity costs three times higher than lower cost regions, you are still at a disadvantage. Take California, we pay $.35/KW in the upper tier while other states to our north pay around $.07/KW, which is more than a 4x difference. Germany and the EU also have high electricity costs.
So assuming you build these, where are you sourcing your datacenter locations? Finding low cost electricity is just as important as chip design, but there are a limited number of fixed options to find the best spots globally.
August 14, 2014, 11:44:36 AM
This is a forum for this manufacturer so I don't think it's ethical to quote other peoples work, but if you're curious why not ask some of the current 28nm based suppliers to give some data on what their chips run at in sub threshold? I think you might be surprised. The GH/mm2 is a useless metric in my opinion, the only reason used it was because Coinbau did - you can only base analysis on data a manufacturer gives you.
No offence, but isn’t the GH/s/mm² metric not directly related to the production costs of the pure silicon in terms of $/GH?
From my understanding, e.g. somebody who is able to realize 0.19 J/GH @ 0.7 GH/s/mm² in 28nm (instead of 1.4 GH/s/mm²) would have to pay roughly twice the $/GH/s price for the ASIC die.
With respect to the main competitor 28nm ASICs I see here a design which will have almost the same $/GH/s price in production (if they could really realize this specification), while only consuming half of the energy. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
No, you are quite correct but my point (which to be honest I didn't really make clearly) is that a standard design, which this clearly is from the die size, has no chance whatsoever of achieving 0.19J/GH. I think it more likely to be nearly twice that amount, possibly more depending on the 'cell' library they've used.
If it was true full custom, it would achieve 0.19 without difficulty, experienced custom guys could get it down a good bit further, probably nearer 0.13
Jump to: