Yes, and anyone can become GoDaddy by buying a hosting business.
Are you for real?
Are you for real?
Why don't you try it. It is better than your "Blackmailing Business".
Topic: [Active Mining] The UNofficial Active Mining Discussion Thread [UNmoderated] - page 33. (Read 76098 times)
February 16, 2014, 03:03:00 PM
Why don't you try it. It is better than your "Blackmailing Business".
February 16, 2014, 02:45:55 PM
...
Indeed the mention of Peltier is laughable when all the rage is cooling efficiency.
Competitors are using liquid cooling.
Some farms even use immersion cooling.
...
Indeed the mention of Peltier is laughable when all the rage is cooling efficiency.
Competitors are using liquid cooling.
Some farms even use immersion cooling.
...
In Ken's defense, by "active cooling" he must've meant "heatsink with powered whirligig." "Passive" being the ghetto version, without.
Alternative:
"Active Cooling(tm) by Active Mining."
Edit @Ken: So what happened to your web hosting gig? Verizon told you to upgrade to business DSL plan if you're going to run a server, or did your neighbor finally password-protect his wifi?
February 16, 2014, 02:24:02 PM
As I have explained many times, it's the "get investors money and sit on your ass" scam. It's pretty much what Labcoin actually did, though they were much lazier, eventually gave up and went "outright scam".
Just ask yourself, what is kslaugther bringing to the table, exactly? Right from the start it was evident the guy did not know what he was doing but moreover didn't care.
More fun:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110201184304/http://milliondollarwebhosting.com/
This is... axs.net, previously known as can2it.com https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2438643 http://www.axs.net/dedicated.html
I'm not sure if MDWH was his attempt to sell the business, or if he bought it.
But look at this joke:
Just ask yourself, what is kslaugther bringing to the table, exactly? Right from the start it was evident the guy did not know what he was doing but moreover didn't care.
More fun:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110201184304/http://milliondollarwebhosting.com/
This is... axs.net, previously known as can2it.com https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2438643 http://www.axs.net/dedicated.html
I'm not sure if MDWH was his attempt to sell the business, or if he bought it.
But look at this joke:
I wonder how godaddy pays for those "Super Bowl Ads". Hint: Maybe their massive web hosting business.
February 06, 2014, 01:57:53 PM
So this is where the cyber scum and haters post.
No, here is where the smart and wit people post. The clueless and delusional people post in the moderate thread. No one here is interested in a lawsuit because no one here did invested in that predictable failure.
February 06, 2014, 01:33:47 PM
So this is where the cyber scum and haters post.
Ken surely needs to know that this here is where all his detractors live.
Who among you is talking with the lawyers for the class action suit?
Ken surely needs to know that this here is where all his detractors live.
Who among you is talking with the lawyers for the class action suit?
February 06, 2014, 11:52:08 AM
Funny, I just noticed this bit about account setup at UMC. I really doubt that UMC would build masks for a customer without an account, so that means no 55 nm tapeout yet. Based on Ken's promptness on getting shares tradeable, I guess he'll tape out in May. If they have the money...
Weekly Update 2/5/2013
This last week has been very busy with our Project manager and engineers working with eASIC on our 28nm custom chip. We have receive the first results back and the chip is expected to run at 30 GH/s, we are working on improving this number. Also, we have received the quote on our PCIe board and our project manager and engineers are meeting with eASIC and our board engineers this week to keep our project on track. We are also meeting with UMC to finalize our account setup. We are also thinking about going to a 20nm custom chip and skipping the 28nm, if we can get it produced fast enough.
I wondered about that as well. We were supposed to have taped-out in mid January. Weekly Update 2/5/2013
This last week has been very busy with our Project manager and engineers working with eASIC on our 28nm custom chip. We have receive the first results back and the chip is expected to run at 30 GH/s, we are working on improving this number. Also, we have received the quote on our PCIe board and our project manager and engineers are meeting with eASIC and our board engineers this week to keep our project on track. We are also meeting with UMC to finalize our account setup. We are also thinking about going to a 20nm custom chip and skipping the 28nm, if we can get it produced fast enough.
February 05, 2014, 10:58:43 PM
There's only one thing you must beware more than reminding Ken that he's a drunk - don't question the wisdom of the Belize Virtual Identity!*
Ken feels his Belize registration is the ne plus ultra of business acumen - the masterstroke of high finance wit. It makes him invincible to Da Man and irresistible to the womenz.
*You accidentally misquoted Ken in the the emboldened text. The term Ken favors is "Virtual Identity." I know, i know - but that's Ken. Gotta keep it authentic for the tourists...
Ken feels his Belize registration is the ne plus ultra of business acumen - the masterstroke of high finance wit. It makes him invincible to Da Man and irresistible to the womenz.
... I'm a bit uncertain on how a virtual entity representing both itself and its profits works when the company owning the virtual entity is based in Belize and the virtual entity is doing business in the United States of America. Would the virtual entity preorder miners from its and its profits' owner?
*You accidentally misquoted Ken in the the emboldened text. The term Ken favors is "Virtual Identity." I know, i know - but that's Ken. Gotta keep it authentic for the tourists...
February 05, 2014, 10:14:59 PM
Welp, this got memoryholed, so I guess Ken still has a plan behind the madness. I do wonder about that preorder claim... millions of goddamn dollars, and only one guy ever showed up on bitcointalk to complain?
Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
Can I ask again about those millions of dollars we have in preorders? Are we still holding the money? Are the customers all cool with it?
Also, are our own miners included in the figure for preorders? I'm a bit uncertain on how a virtual entity representing both itself and its profits works when the company owning the virtual entity is based in Belize and the virtual entity is doing business in the United States of America. Would the virtual entity preorder miners from its and its profits' owner?
Also, are our own miners included in the figure for preorders? I'm a bit uncertain on how a virtual entity representing both itself and its profits works when the company owning the virtual entity is based in Belize and the virtual entity is doing business in the United States of America. Would the virtual entity preorder miners from its and its profits' owner?
February 05, 2014, 08:25:27 PM
Funny, I just noticed this bit about account setup at UMC. I really doubt that UMC would build masks for a customer without an account, so that means no 55 nm tapeout yet. Based on Ken's promptness on getting shares tradeable, I guess he'll tape out in May. If they have the money...
Weekly Update 2/5/2013
This last week has been very busy with our Project manager and engineers working with eASIC on our 28nm custom chip. We have receive the first results back and the chip is expected to run at 30 GH/s, we are working on improving this number. Also, we have received the quote on our PCIe board and our project manager and engineers are meeting with eASIC and our board engineers this week to keep our project on track. We are also meeting with UMC to finalize our account setup. We are also thinking about going to a 20nm custom chip and skipping the 28nm, if we can get it produced fast enough.
Weekly Update 2/5/2013
This last week has been very busy with our Project manager and engineers working with eASIC on our 28nm custom chip. We have receive the first results back and the chip is expected to run at 30 GH/s, we are working on improving this number. Also, we have received the quote on our PCIe board and our project manager and engineers are meeting with eASIC and our board engineers this week to keep our project on track. We are also meeting with UMC to finalize our account setup. We are also thinking about going to a 20nm custom chip and skipping the 28nm, if we can get it produced fast enough.
February 05, 2014, 08:01:41 PM
this got moderated from the official thread - lol
the license plate is 'ACTM 911' - seemed fitting
the license plate is 'ACTM 911' - seemed fitting
It's really strange what does and does not get moderated over there. Ken really goes into a rage when I call him an alcoholic. :-)
The Stockholm Syndrome really has a grip on the throats of most folks over there. They take the most ridiculous claims at face value if it offers the tiniest glimmer of a chance to exit with their skin intact. Nobody asks where the 10s of millions to make a 28 nm device will come from even while Ken is desperately trying to come up with $80k selling shares while he holds everyone else's shares hostage.
And of course there is the greatest elephant in the room. Customers. According to Ken he sold $6M of easic devices that were promised to customers in November. A project that he has now cancelled. And yet there is no one complaining. Not a peep. Cointerra is a month late, but actually shipping and folks are warming up the tar and feathers for Ravi and his team. But Ken's customers, dead silence. Maybe all his customers are from areas without internet access??
February 05, 2014, 05:46:40 PM
this got moderated from the official thread - lol
the license plate is 'ACTM 911' - seemed fitting
the license plate is 'ACTM 911' - seemed fitting
February 03, 2014, 11:46:56 AM
I can't believe I never noticed this thread before.
His estimate might be a little high, but it doesn't seem impossible given the competition. Bitfury chips can do 3GH/s with better efficiency than these specs (though no one seems to run them that high), so ~12.7TH/s per wafer before losses. Antminer is claiming a 12mm^2 die and they're getting 2.8GH/s in their miners at pretty much exactly the same efficiency as Ken is claiming, so that would be ~14TH/s per wafer raw. That's right in line with that these numbers.
I'd be interested in what you would estimate the cost of 5 lots of wafers for a 55nm process, along with the mask set cost. Fabs are notoriously tight-lipped with these estimates, and I don't have access to any recent GSA reports.
I'd be more worried about his timelines and costs, especially since the profit projections he's releasing have them mining on May 1 with 1.2PH/s when the bulk of the wafers aren't scheduled to arrive until May sometime. They also don't seem to amortize the cost of the mask set or infrastructure in the hardware costs in those projections. I'm still not sure if that was meant as some kind of cruel joke though.
Ken claimed 0.7V to get his power numbers. Those ultra low voltage processes have dismal yields. It doesn't matter to Bitfury because he is getting a huge premium for his devices.
Schedule is definitely the cruel joke of this latest round. If Ken gets first silicon in April, he will be lucky to have validated boards in June. Then it is another 60 days for volume wafers. By then there will be 20nm products on the market, and possibly 14 nm.
Costs are tough to say with any precision. Everything is negotiable and the semi market is really horrible right now. If it was a good market he wouldn't get wafer starts at all. Foundries research their customers, and he wouldn't come through that looking very good. Ball park:
Mask Set $400k
Payment to People's ASIC
Wafer starts $3k
Bumping, Packaging, assembly, test NRE $100k
Back end unit costs will be significantly more than silicon.
I would expect that he needs to build 1 Ph/s just to get his real costs lower than just buying Antminers in bulk.
February 03, 2014, 11:35:16 AM
I believe what Entropy is referring to is the normal yield from wafers. When chips are produced on wafers there is a known and acceptable loss due to defects in the surface of the silicon.
What Ken has done in his calculation is said, one wafer can make X chips, each chip produces Y hash, so the hash rate from each wafer is X*Y
So in his calculation he hasn't allowed for any scrapped chips (which is totally normal during chip/wafer production)
That's possible, though if Bitmain was getting 14TH/s raw from their wafers 12.7TH/s is about a 90% yield. What Ken has done in his calculation is said, one wafer can make X chips, each chip produces Y hash, so the hash rate from each wafer is X*Y
So in his calculation he hasn't allowed for any scrapped chips (which is totally normal during chip/wafer production)
You're comparing apples and pears - the bitmain chip and the ActM chip are designed independently, just because they are both 55nm doesn't mean they share the same RTL code...
I'm not saying they do. I'm just tossing that out there as an example of a chip that probably does yield in the same ballpark as ActM is claiming to say it's not an impossibility. The actual ActM chip could do better, the same, worse or plain not work at all. Ken just said that the design was supposed to yield ~6800 chips and since Ken never shares where he gets his numbers from we don't know if that's raw*estimated yield or just raw. 
February 03, 2014, 11:30:12 AM
I believe what Entropy is referring to is the normal yield from wafers. When chips are produced on wafers there is a known and acceptable loss due to defects in the surface of the silicon.
What Ken has done in his calculation is said, one wafer can make X chips, each chip produces Y hash, so the hash rate from each wafer is X*Y
So in his calculation he hasn't allowed for any scrapped chips (which is totally normal during chip/wafer production)
That's possible, though if Bitmain was getting 14TH/s raw from their wafers 12.7TH/s is about a 90% yield. What Ken has done in his calculation is said, one wafer can make X chips, each chip produces Y hash, so the hash rate from each wafer is X*Y
So in his calculation he hasn't allowed for any scrapped chips (which is totally normal during chip/wafer production)
You're comparing apples and pears - the bitmain chip and the ActM chip are designed independently, just because they are both 55nm doesn't mean they share the same RTL code...
February 03, 2014, 11:18:26 AM
I believe what Entropy is referring to is the normal yield from wafers. When chips are produced on wafers there is a known and acceptable loss due to defects in the surface of the silicon.
What Ken has done in his calculation is said, one wafer can make X chips, each chip produces Y hash, so the hash rate from each wafer is X*Y
So in his calculation he hasn't allowed for any scrapped chips (which is totally normal during chip/wafer production)
That's possible, though if Bitmain was getting 14TH/s raw from their wafers 12.7TH/s is about a 90% yield. What Ken has done in his calculation is said, one wafer can make X chips, each chip produces Y hash, so the hash rate from each wafer is X*Y
So in his calculation he hasn't allowed for any scrapped chips (which is totally normal during chip/wafer production)
February 03, 2014, 10:49:55 AM
Ken very rarely gives figures and information so i don't take the below quote lightly...
Maybe you are reading into his wording too much Entropy
Maybe you are reading into his wording too much Entropy
Update on trading and wafers:
It is going to be a few more days before, I can get the verifying program uploaded to the server.
I have been busy getting on the February UMC production run for our 55nm chip.
We are going to get 6 Wafer in the middle of April with about 1 week to package the chips. Based on our estimated yield of 6,800 chips per wafer this give us 40,800 chips for a total hash rate of 77.52 TH/s. Next we are going to receive 19 wafers by the end of April for a total of 245.48 TH/s, giving us 323 TH/s. In May we will be able to get all of the wafers we want to run.
It is going to be a few more days before, I can get the verifying program uploaded to the server.
I have been busy getting on the February UMC production run for our 55nm chip.
We are going to get 6 Wafer in the middle of April with about 1 week to package the chips. Based on our estimated yield of 6,800 chips per wafer this give us 40,800 chips for a total hash rate of 77.52 TH/s. Next we are going to receive 19 wafers by the end of April for a total of 245.48 TH/s, giving us 323 TH/s. In May we will be able to get all of the wafers we want to run.
That's interesting. If true, he is starting a full wafer lot and then holding 19 wafers before first metal. This is a common strategy to validate your design with the first few wafers so if there are problems you can go to mask edit and only scrap the 6 wafers.
My editorial comment would be that his estimate of hash per wafer seems about 30-40% high for 55 nm, and UMC has a reputation for horrible yields. On top of that expecting packaged and tested chips in 1 week is very optimistic. Most teams have been running more like 60 days to get from finished silicon to tested boards.
His estimate might be a little high, but it doesn't seem impossible given the competition. Bitfury chips can do 3GH/s with better efficiency than these specs (though no one seems to run them that high), so ~12.7TH/s per wafer before losses. Antminer is claiming a 12mm^2 die and they're getting 2.8GH/s in their miners at pretty much exactly the same efficiency as Ken is claiming, so that would be ~14TH/s per wafer raw. That's right in line with that these numbers.
I'd be interested in what you would estimate the cost of 5 lots of wafers for a 55nm process, along with the mask set cost. Fabs are notoriously tight-lipped with these estimates, and I don't have access to any recent GSA reports.
I'd be more worried about his timelines and costs, especially since the profit projections he's releasing have them mining on May 1 with 1.2PH/s when the bulk of the wafers aren't scheduled to arrive until May sometime. They also don't seem to amortize the cost of the mask set or infrastructure in the hardware costs in those projections. I'm still not sure if that was meant as some kind of cruel joke though.
I believe what Entropy is referring to is the normal yield from wafers. When chips are produced on wafers there is a known and acceptable loss due to defects in the surface of the silicon.
What Ken has done in his calculation is said, one wafer can make X chips, each chip produces Y hash, so the hash rate from each wafer is X*Y
So in his calculation he hasn't allowed for any scrapped chips (which is totally normal during chip/wafer production)
February 03, 2014, 10:42:32 AM
Ken very rarely gives figures and information so i don't take the below quote lightly...
Maybe you are reading into his wording too much Entropy
Maybe you are reading into his wording too much Entropy
Update on trading and wafers:
It is going to be a few more days before, I can get the verifying program uploaded to the server.
I have been busy getting on the February UMC production run for our 55nm chip.
We are going to get 6 Wafer in the middle of April with about 1 week to package the chips. Based on our estimated yield of 6,800 chips per wafer this give us 40,800 chips for a total hash rate of 77.52 TH/s. Next we are going to receive 19 wafers by the end of April for a total of 245.48 TH/s, giving us 323 TH/s. In May we will be able to get all of the wafers we want to run.
It is going to be a few more days before, I can get the verifying program uploaded to the server.
I have been busy getting on the February UMC production run for our 55nm chip.
We are going to get 6 Wafer in the middle of April with about 1 week to package the chips. Based on our estimated yield of 6,800 chips per wafer this give us 40,800 chips for a total hash rate of 77.52 TH/s. Next we are going to receive 19 wafers by the end of April for a total of 245.48 TH/s, giving us 323 TH/s. In May we will be able to get all of the wafers we want to run.
That's interesting. If true, he is starting a full wafer lot and then holding 19 wafers before first metal. This is a common strategy to validate your design with the first few wafers so if there are problems you can go to mask edit and only scrap the 6 wafers.
My editorial comment would be that his estimate of hash per wafer seems about 30-40% high for 55 nm, and UMC has a reputation for horrible yields. On top of that expecting packaged and tested chips in 1 week is very optimistic. Most teams have been running more like 60 days to get from finished silicon to tested boards.
His estimate might be a little high, but it doesn't seem impossible given the competition. Bitfury chips can do 3GH/s with better efficiency than these specs (though no one seems to run them that high), so ~12.7TH/s per wafer before losses. Antminer is claiming a 12mm^2 die and they're getting 2.8GH/s in their miners at pretty much exactly the same efficiency as Ken is claiming, so that would be ~14TH/s per wafer raw. That's right in line with that these numbers.
I'd be interested in what you would estimate the cost of 5 lots of wafers for a 55nm process, along with the mask set cost. Fabs are notoriously tight-lipped with these estimates, and I don't have access to any recent GSA reports.
I'd be more worried about his timelines and costs, especially since the profit projections he's releasing have them mining on May 1 with 1.2PH/s when the bulk of the wafers aren't scheduled to arrive until May sometime. They also don't seem to amortize the cost of the mask set or infrastructure in the hardware costs in those projections. I'm still not sure if that was meant as some kind of cruel joke though.
February 03, 2014, 09:17:35 AM
Everyone seems to be getting lost in the details - finding errors in Ken's math, laughing at his delusional projections, etc., etc.
When there is absolutely no evidence of *anything at all being done.*
A quick, loosely chronological rundown of claims and supporting evidence:
-Ken claims that 28nm chips would be hashing now.
They're not. No sample chips, nothing.
-Ken claims that the engineers hired to design boards for the nonexistent chips botched the project and are fired.
No evidence of botched boards. Not even the name of the company which was supposedly hired on to do the work & later fired.
-Ken promises to migrate shares to TC.
Lol, no.
-A guy going by Bargraphics, with a history of shilling for scam companies, quells the doubters by promising to visit Ken in person. Promises to bring back shitloads of pics and real answers.
Comes back with "good feels" and no pics.
-Ken claims to buy a "stealth startup" with 55nm maskset and 2 engineers in tow.
No evidence at all of that taking place.
The only evidence of "Virtual Identity [sic] known as Active Mining" having any projections into our mundane corporal reality is...
A picture of an old guy in a warehouse... Three workbenches... A few dozen empty rack cases.
lol
When there is absolutely no evidence of *anything at all being done.*
A quick, loosely chronological rundown of claims and supporting evidence:
-Ken claims that 28nm chips would be hashing now.
They're not. No sample chips, nothing.
-Ken claims that the engineers hired to design boards for the nonexistent chips botched the project and are fired.
No evidence of botched boards. Not even the name of the company which was supposedly hired on to do the work & later fired.
-Ken promises to migrate shares to TC.
Lol, no.
-A guy going by Bargraphics, with a history of shilling for scam companies, quells the doubters by promising to visit Ken in person. Promises to bring back shitloads of pics and real answers.
Comes back with "good feels" and no pics.
-Ken claims to buy a "stealth startup" with 55nm maskset and 2 engineers in tow.
No evidence at all of that taking place.
The only evidence of "Virtual Identity [sic] known as Active Mining" having any projections into our mundane corporal reality is...
A picture of an old guy in a warehouse... Three workbenches... A few dozen empty rack cases.
lol
February 02, 2014, 09:36:27 PM
Ken very rarely gives figures and information so i don't take the below quote lightly...
Maybe you are reading into his wording too much Entropy
Maybe you are reading into his wording too much Entropy
Update on trading and wafers:
It is going to be a few more days before, I can get the verifying program uploaded to the server.
I have been busy getting on the February UMC production run for our 55nm chip.
We are going to get 6 Wafer in the middle of April with about 1 week to package the chips. Based on our estimated yield of 6,800 chips per wafer this give us 40,800 chips for a total hash rate of 77.52 TH/s. Next we are going to receive 19 wafers by the end of April for a total of 245.48 TH/s, giving us 323 TH/s. In May we will be able to get all of the wafers we want to run.
It is going to be a few more days before, I can get the verifying program uploaded to the server.
I have been busy getting on the February UMC production run for our 55nm chip.
We are going to get 6 Wafer in the middle of April with about 1 week to package the chips. Based on our estimated yield of 6,800 chips per wafer this give us 40,800 chips for a total hash rate of 77.52 TH/s. Next we are going to receive 19 wafers by the end of April for a total of 245.48 TH/s, giving us 323 TH/s. In May we will be able to get all of the wafers we want to run.
That's interesting. If true, he is starting a full wafer lot and then holding 19 wafers before first metal. This is a common strategy to validate your design with the first few wafers so if there are problems you can go to mask edit and only scrap the 6 wafers.
My editorial comment would be that his estimate of hash per wafer seems about 30-40% high for 55 nm, and UMC has a reputation for horrible yields. On top of that expecting packaged and tested chips in 1 week is very optimistic. Most teams have been running more like 60 days to get from finished silicon to tested boards.
February 02, 2014, 02:29:50 PM
Ken very rarely gives figures and information...
I would take that as a huge red flag as well.
We do. But not much anyone can do about it with our shares having been suspended for months...
Jump to: