Topic: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] - page 269. (Read 630051 times)
February 17, 2014, 08:46:12 PM
i just want to get my 0.0025B per share back with 55nm chips . is it ok??
February 17, 2014, 07:37:42 PM
Hopefully the 55nm will make for an interesting year.
February 17, 2014, 05:22:34 PM
Yes, Ken's pleased with the new thread and will posts updates here.
Yes, the old thread is locked and I will be posting here.
February 17, 2014, 04:27:00 PM
Yes, Ken's pleased with the new thread and will post updates here.
February 17, 2014, 03:57:45 PM
Has anyone spoken to Ken? Will he update in here?
February 17, 2014, 09:46:21 AM
The shares are not tradeable yet. When the shares are listed they will be tradeable on the centralised exchange Crypto-Trade AND/OR through the decentralised Chroma Wallet (colored coins).
Ken posts weekly updates around 2345hrs GMT/UTC on Wednesdays although some weekly reports have been up to a day early. The shareholders are pushing very hard to get us trading again as soon as possible.
http://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/
Ken posts weekly updates around 2345hrs GMT/UTC on Wednesdays although some weekly reports have been up to a day early. The shareholders are pushing very hard to get us trading again as soon as possible.
http://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/
February 17, 2014, 09:41:03 AM
are the bitfunder shares already tradeable? if not yet, when will they be tradeable?
February 17, 2014, 09:29:47 AM
Hi All,
The Official ActiveMining thread has been Locked by Ken.
This thread will now replace that one.
We will continue to make this thread Troll-Free, Enjoy!
-ActM Thread
The Official ActiveMining thread has been Locked by Ken.
This thread will now replace that one.
We will continue to make this thread Troll-Free, Enjoy!
-ActM Thread
GOOD MOVE!
February 17, 2014, 09:20:23 AM
Hi All,
The old Official ActiveMining thread has been Locked by Ken.
This thread will now replace that one.
We will continue to make this thread Troll-Free, Enjoy!
-ActM Thread
The old Official ActiveMining thread has been Locked by Ken.
This thread will now replace that one.
We will continue to make this thread Troll-Free, Enjoy!
-ActM Thread
February 17, 2014, 07:56:45 AM
OK. Our prices will never be competitive with our competitors. But what matters is our price per GH for our own mining farm.
I hope we are getting these chips for ourselves much cheaper than $3/GH.
I hope we are getting these chips for ourselves much cheaper than $3/GH.
Thanks, MrTeal for chiming in.
The 55nm may not compete with AM's offering, but I do believe that the true cost per chip is quite lower than the listed retail price. This allows for two thing.
1.) It gives VMC room to reduce the cost of the chip to make the sales more appealing while still maintain a profit margin.
2.)It means much more efficient mining for the ActM mining farm.
It's possible that Ken is going to pre-sell as many of these reels as he can - which may not be many - and then put the rest to use for the ActM Mining Farm.
It would make sense to pre-sell chips at a price that ROI's higher than mining with the chips - otherwise why would you sell them? Maybe that's the logic.
February 16, 2014, 10:26:49 AM
OK. Our prices will never be competitive with our competitors. But what matters is our price per GH for our own mining farm.
I hope we are getting these chips for ourselves much cheaper than $3/GH.
I hope we are getting these chips for ourselves much cheaper than $3/GH.
Thanks, MrTeal for chiming in.
The 55nm may not compete with AM's offering, but I do believe that the true cost per chip is quite lower than the listed retail price. This allows for two thing.
1.) It gives VMC room to reduce the cost of the chip to make the sales more appealing while still maintain a profit margin.
2.)It means much more efficient mining for the ActM mining farm.
It's possible that Ken is going to pre-sell as many of these reels as he can - which may not be many - and then put the rest to use for the ActM Mining Farm.
February 16, 2014, 06:35:06 AM
OK. Our prices will never be competitive with our competitors. But what matters is our price per GH for our own mining farm.
I hope we are getting these chips for ourselves much cheaper than $3/GH.
I hope we are getting these chips for ourselves much cheaper than $3/GH.
February 16, 2014, 03:22:16 AM
With Ken releasing the official specs of the 55nm chip it's time to again assess our potential position in the mining race. I'd like to aim this post specifically at AsicMiner who announced their chip specs at the end of last week.
Exhibit A: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4816701
Exhibit B: http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=34&controller=product
What do you guys think? I'd love to hear from the EEs among us regarding both sides of this issue.
Exhibit A: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4816701
Quote
Specification
Process node: 40nm
Package type: QFN64 8mmx8mm (with another option of QFN64 7mmx7mm possible)
I/O: Standard SPI protocol with clk, in, out and cs.
Rated Hashrate: 12.8GHash/s per chip, with a wide range of overclock/downclock options
Rated Voltage: 0.72V, recommended voltage range is 0.55V-1V
Power Consumption: 0.2J/GHash low voltage, 0.35J/GHash rated voltage
Price range
0.49$/G-0.99$/G, depending on order size and delivery speed of choice.
Process node: 40nm
Package type: QFN64 8mmx8mm (with another option of QFN64 7mmx7mm possible)
I/O: Standard SPI protocol with clk, in, out and cs.
Rated Hashrate: 12.8GHash/s per chip, with a wide range of overclock/downclock options
Rated Voltage: 0.72V, recommended voltage range is 0.55V-1V
Power Consumption: 0.2J/GHash low voltage, 0.35J/GHash rated voltage
Price range
0.49$/G-0.99$/G, depending on order size and delivery speed of choice.
Exhibit B: http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=34&controller=product
Quote
Pre-Order Fast-Hash-One 55nm Reel (3,500 Chips) +/- 1%.
BitLadder-55 Specifications:
Technology: UMC Technology: 55 nm
Die size: LPDie size: 3.126 x 3.558 mm
Substrate package: 11 x 11 mm
Package type: QFN-132 with thermal pad
Design type: Routed for density and performance
Performance: 1.8 GH/s (active cooling), 1.7 GH/s (passive cooling)
Power Consumption (Est.) 4.8 W @ 455 MHz (*active cooling) 4.5 W @ 425 MHz (**passive cooling)
Performance design: 4 engines @ 455mhz nominal
Digitally programmable between 200 MHz and 480 MHz Hash performance
Price
$20,055 per 3500 chip reel, or $20,055 for 6.3TH
$3.18/Gh
BitLadder-55 Specifications:
Technology: UMC Technology: 55 nm
Die size: LPDie size: 3.126 x 3.558 mm
Substrate package: 11 x 11 mm
Package type: QFN-132 with thermal pad
Design type: Routed for density and performance
Performance: 1.8 GH/s (active cooling), 1.7 GH/s (passive cooling)
Power Consumption (Est.) 4.8 W @ 455 MHz (*active cooling) 4.5 W @ 425 MHz (**passive cooling)
Performance design: 4 engines @ 455mhz nominal
Digitally programmable between 200 MHz and 480 MHz Hash performance
Price
$20,055 per 3500 chip reel, or $20,055 for 6.3TH
$3.18/Gh
What do you guys think? I'd love to hear from the EEs among us regarding both sides of this issue.
In theory 0.2j/gh is possible - in theory... but at best I think they'll be 0.5w/gh. Either way the ActM chips will need to be cheaper to compete, but there is scope for that.
February 16, 2014, 03:16:04 AM
I don't think it's right to say it failed
The aim of the project was to create an economical 28nm ASIC in conjunction with eASIC and roll out that chip into our mining rigs sometime in late 2013. No chip was presented to Ken, no machines were created - so that project failed. The failure is complete and indisputable.
I can't see any point in putting positive spin on it. We need to accept the facts and move on. I've never done anything on this forum other than present the facts as they have been given to us. Some of that information has been misunderstood but when we do know the facts we should not shy away from them whether good or bad. Project 'A' failed and has been cancelled.
Now we have project 'B' - 55nm full-custom UMC fabbed ASIC which is at an advanced stage.
And we also have project 'C' - 28nm full-custom which has yet to be taped out by a yet to be chosen supplier/SC firm.
It was "cancelled" - it didn't "fail" - fail implies it was attempted but didn't work. Cancelled means just that. It's not about positive spin, its about accurate and non-trolly wording.
February 15, 2014, 11:01:38 PM
With Ken releasing the official specs of the 55nm chip it's time to again assess our potential position in the mining race. I'd like to aim this post specifically at AsicMiner who announced their chip specs at the end of last week.
Exhibit A: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4816701
Exhibit B: http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=34&controller=product
What do you guys think? I'd love to hear from the EEs among us regarding both sides of this issue.
Those specs as posted are very different than what Ken had previously posted.Exhibit A: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4816701
Quote
Specification
Process node: 40nm
Package type: QFN64 8mmx8mm (with another option of QFN64 7mmx7mm possible)
I/O: Standard SPI protocol with clk, in, out and cs.
Rated Hashrate: 12.8GHash/s per chip, with a wide range of overclock/downclock options
Rated Voltage: 0.72V, recommended voltage range is 0.55V-1V
Power Consumption: 0.2J/GHash low voltage, 0.35J/GHash rated voltage
Price range
0.49$/G-0.99$/G, depending on order size and delivery speed of choice.
Process node: 40nm
Package type: QFN64 8mmx8mm (with another option of QFN64 7mmx7mm possible)
I/O: Standard SPI protocol with clk, in, out and cs.
Rated Hashrate: 12.8GHash/s per chip, with a wide range of overclock/downclock options
Rated Voltage: 0.72V, recommended voltage range is 0.55V-1V
Power Consumption: 0.2J/GHash low voltage, 0.35J/GHash rated voltage
Price range
0.49$/G-0.99$/G, depending on order size and delivery speed of choice.
Exhibit B: http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=34&controller=product
Quote
Pre-Order Fast-Hash-One 55nm Reel (3,500 Chips) +/- 1%.
BitLadder-55 Specifications:
Technology: UMC Technology: 55 nm
Die size: LPDie size: 3.126 x 3.558 mm
Substrate package: 11 x 11 mm
Package type: QFN-132 with thermal pad
Design type: Routed for density and performance
Performance: 1.8 GH/s (active cooling), 1.7 GH/s (passive cooling)
Power Consumption (Est.) 4.8 W @ 455 MHz (*active cooling) 4.5 W @ 425 MHz (**passive cooling)
Performance design: 4 engines @ 455mhz nominal
Digitally programmable between 200 MHz and 480 MHz Hash performance
Price
$20,055 per 3500 chip reel, or $20,055 for 6.3TH
$3.18/Gh
Well, BitLadder-55 Specifications:
Technology: UMC Technology: 55 nm
Die size: LPDie size: 3.126 x 3.558 mm
Substrate package: 11 x 11 mm
Package type: QFN-132 with thermal pad
Design type: Routed for density and performance
Performance: 1.8 GH/s (active cooling), 1.7 GH/s (passive cooling)
Power Consumption (Est.) 4.8 W @ 455 MHz (*active cooling) 4.5 W @ 425 MHz (**passive cooling)
Performance design: 4 engines @ 455mhz nominal
Digitally programmable between 200 MHz and 480 MHz Hash performance
Price
$20,055 per 3500 chip reel, or $20,055 for 6.3TH
$3.18/Gh
What do you guys think? I'd love to hear from the EEs among us regarding both sides of this issue.
For one, the QFN-132 package is going to be a bit of a PITA.
The active vs passive cooling thing makes no sense whatsoever. He is not using a standard definition of "active cooling" at all.
Quote
* "Active cooling" means a two Peltier elements (one on top of the chips, one on the underside of the PCB).
**"Passive cooling" means two fan-cooled heat sinks (one on top of the chips,one on the underside of the PCB).
Peltier cooling is ridiculously inefficient, on the order of 50%. If you're trying to cool 4.8W with a peltier, you'll have about a 5W draw from the peltier element in addition to the 4.8W draw from the chip itself. I would s**"Passive cooling" means two fan-cooled heat sinks (one on top of the chips,one on the underside of the PCB).
Using the specs for "passive" cooling, you're looking at 2.65J/GH at the chip level. That's even higher than Avalon at 2.05J/GH at nominal 1.3GH/s speeds. Right now you'd pay $8710 for 2500pcs of 1.3GH/s Avalon Gen2 chips, or $2.68/GH/s.
So, to sum up, at current prices if those specs are accurate you're looking at 19% higher cost than Avalon, 29% higher power use, untested chips vs proven design, no reference design vs many existing designs, and shipping optimistically April 17th versus immediately.
I know many people have issues with Avalon, but in this EE's opinion you'd be crazy to buy those chips at those prices. They need to be $1/GH/s to be even remotely attractive.
February 15, 2014, 06:07:29 PM
I don't see how we can have a legitimate discussion regarding the two chips. Both chips are nothing but specifications at this point, but one set of specs is coming from an established company with a proven track record of delivering actual products, while the other is simply specs. I hope we end up shipping product on the date that has been announced, but history is not on our side.
You can't assess your position in a race if you're not even running yet. I am more interested in acquiring some concrete evidence of anything Ken has announced to us before I worry about our position in the field.
You can't assess your position in a race if you're not even running yet. I am more interested in acquiring some concrete evidence of anything Ken has announced to us before I worry about our position in the field.
If you are still unsure of the 55nm tape out then you aren't in the position to discuss this.
For those of us that know that the UMC 55nm chip has achieved tape-out, what do you think about the chips? I've heard some EEs sincerely doubting the AM offering's power draw, but I don't know enough to weigh in. Is what FC claims possible?
Also, word on the street is that the UMC 55nm is being produced at sub $1/GH. What is a reasonable profit margin for these chips?
February 15, 2014, 05:45:55 PM
I don't see how we can have a legitimate discussion regarding the two chips. Both chips are nothing but specifications at this point, but one set of specs is coming from an established company with a proven track record of delivering actual products, while the other is simply specs. I hope we end up shipping product on the date that has been announced, but history is not on our side.
You can't assess your position in a race if you're not even running yet. I am more interested in acquiring some concrete evidence of anything Ken has announced to us before I worry about our position in the field.
You can't assess your position in a race if you're not even running yet. I am more interested in acquiring some concrete evidence of anything Ken has announced to us before I worry about our position in the field.
February 15, 2014, 04:19:31 PM
With Ken releasing the official specs of the 55nm chip it's time to again assess our potential position in the mining race. I'd like to aim this post specifically at AsicMiner who announced their chip specs at the end of last week.
Exhibit A: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4816701
Exhibit B: http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=34&controller=product
What do you guys think? I'd love to hear from the EEs among us regarding both sides of this issue.
Exhibit A: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4816701
Quote
Specification
Process node: 40nm
Package type: QFN64 8mmx8mm (with another option of QFN64 7mmx7mm possible)
I/O: Standard SPI protocol with clk, in, out and cs.
Rated Hashrate: 12.8GHash/s per chip, with a wide range of overclock/downclock options
Rated Voltage: 0.72V, recommended voltage range is 0.55V-1V
Power Consumption: 0.2J/GHash low voltage, 0.35J/GHash rated voltage
Price range
0.49$/G-0.99$/G, depending on order size and delivery speed of choice.
Process node: 40nm
Package type: QFN64 8mmx8mm (with another option of QFN64 7mmx7mm possible)
I/O: Standard SPI protocol with clk, in, out and cs.
Rated Hashrate: 12.8GHash/s per chip, with a wide range of overclock/downclock options
Rated Voltage: 0.72V, recommended voltage range is 0.55V-1V
Power Consumption: 0.2J/GHash low voltage, 0.35J/GHash rated voltage
Price range
0.49$/G-0.99$/G, depending on order size and delivery speed of choice.
Exhibit B: http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=34&controller=product
Quote
Pre-Order Fast-Hash-One 55nm Reel (3,500 Chips) +/- 1%.
BitLadder-55 Specifications:
Technology: UMC Technology: 55 nm
Die size: LPDie size: 3.126 x 3.558 mm
Substrate package: 11 x 11 mm
Package type: QFN-132 with thermal pad
Design type: Routed for density and performance
Performance: 1.8 GH/s (active cooling), 1.7 GH/s (passive cooling)
Power Consumption (Est.) 4.8 W @ 455 MHz (*active cooling) 4.5 W @ 425 MHz (**passive cooling)
Performance design: 4 engines @ 455mhz nominal
Digitally programmable between 200 MHz and 480 MHz Hash performance
Price
$20,055 per 3500 chip reel, or $20,055 for 6.3TH
$3.18/Gh
BitLadder-55 Specifications:
Technology: UMC Technology: 55 nm
Die size: LPDie size: 3.126 x 3.558 mm
Substrate package: 11 x 11 mm
Package type: QFN-132 with thermal pad
Design type: Routed for density and performance
Performance: 1.8 GH/s (active cooling), 1.7 GH/s (passive cooling)
Power Consumption (Est.) 4.8 W @ 455 MHz (*active cooling) 4.5 W @ 425 MHz (**passive cooling)
Performance design: 4 engines @ 455mhz nominal
Digitally programmable between 200 MHz and 480 MHz Hash performance
Price
$20,055 per 3500 chip reel, or $20,055 for 6.3TH
$3.18/Gh
What do you guys think? I'd love to hear from the EEs among us regarding both sides of this issue.
February 15, 2014, 10:07:39 AM
I don't think it's right to say it failed
The aim of the project was to create an economical 28nm ASIC in conjunction with eASIC and roll out that chip into our mining rigs sometime in late 2013. No chip was presented to Ken, no machines were created - so that project failed. The failure is complete and indisputable.
I can't see any point in putting positive spin on it. We need to accept the facts and move on. I've never done anything on this forum other than present the facts as they have been given to us. Some of that information has been misunderstood but when we do know the facts we should not shy away from them whether good or bad. Project 'A' failed and has been cancelled.
Now we have project 'B' - 55nm full-custom UMC fabbed ASIC which is at an advanced stage.
And we also have project 'C' - 28nm full-custom which has yet to be taped out by a yet to be chosen supplier/SC firm.
February 15, 2014, 07:57:46 AM
That's more like it. So, this 45nm proposal was openly cancelled in favour of the 28nm only project. Sadly that project failed for whatever reason. The remains of that failed project has become a full-custom 28nm chip.
In addition to the 28nm full custom, there is now also a full-custom 55nm in late-stage development. Hope that helps.
In addition to the 28nm full custom, there is now also a full-custom 55nm in late-stage development. Hope that helps.
I don't think it's right to say it failed - the 28nm nextreme chips were too expensive and would not ROI, so the decision was made to go full custom and in the meantime get some 55nm chips out there.
Nextreme3 chips were over 10-20 times more expensive per GH than the 55nm chips.
Jump to: