Topic: ActiveMining Overview and Speculation Thread - page 89. (Read 168030 times)

Some more big buys from the wall on btc-tc and it is down to 1,797,582. Thats over 100k in under 24 hours!

I doubt burnside would bypass the approval process—application fees are an important part of LTC-GLOBAL shareholder dividend structure, and he is already trying to change the application process due to applicant complaints, which is causing some resistance with moderators. (For more info, see: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2711871)

Ken is out meeting babefoot and but I have been chomping at the bit to hear the strategy of reducing the wall to 100k on Bitfunder.  I know it has been discussed before as a good alternative to the massive walls that are there now, and to release the rest of the shares in chunks since the funds for the NRE are already there.  Time is of the essence, and I believe Ken is doing this to try to speed up the process.  I am expecting to hear within the next 10 business days that the design has been completed and chip production has begun.

Active Mining will be approved on BTCT soon, I also hope this is completed by mid week since the swap is only offered until July 31st.  I cannot see Burnside or LTC Global shareholders denying the means to the merger for shareholders who are on BTCT.  If it were to be denied, those who are on BTCT that hold shares will be moving to BitFunder, and that is definitely not what Burnside wants.  I wonder if for this rare, first time only occurrence of a merger security on his exchange, will have Burnside by-passing the voting system and pushing Active Mining through because it is and was what the shareholders of AMC want.  At that point, what LTC Global shareholders opinion do not matter, its the will of the shareholders of the merging security.

Surely these points bear discussion on the speculation thread. Thoughts?

Surely these points bear discussion on the speculation thread. Thoughts?

Updated the original post with the shares purchased from the wall, doesn't cover 24 hours, more like 20, so I added times of when I dumped into Excel.  These are for BTCT only, as far as I can tell by searching through the trade history, no shares have been purchased from that wall since 7/9 and only 800 shares fell in that day.

Vbs I read your post and it really made me think when you spoke of delays. 

Typical design criteria include NRE, time to market, power consumption, performance, and unit cost.  eASIC offers structured ASICs to address the problem of production times and volume.  Some designers, say KNC, prefer to prototype FPGA first and then take these designs to structured ASIC, and this is where delays can come into play along with increased cost.  The fab time using the straight to structured ASIC is decreased, the NRE and unit cost are of the most efficient.   eASIC's Nextreme and Nextreme-2 families of structured ASICs allows Ken to design directly with these families, both of which have much shorter design times and much lower NREs

25 million shares, not 100

EDIT - yes it is to early, I didn't read your post carefully lol

EDIT - my original analysis used 10,000,000 shares - its too early for me to do this

Left the analysis because its useful still:


I don't have time to type out a whole analysis, but lets do a market cap comparison to ASICMINENR:

ASICMINER has issued 400,000 shares, which are currently selling at ~4BTC/share:

400,000*4 = 1,600,000BTC * $95 = $152,000,000 valuation

AM has issued 100,000,000 shares which are currently selling at .0025BTC

100,000,000*.0025 = 250,000 BTC *$95 = $23,750,000

What am I missing here, if we assume that the market is holding a fairly steady value on ASICMINER, and has tolerance for the risk at that level, whats to say AM cant be EVEN HALF as successful. I know this is speculation, and I know Ken is unproven, but I'm surprised all of the bandwagoners haven't jumped on this sooner. For the record - IMO a $100+ mm valuation for a company we dont even know the location or owner of is INSANE.


Someone please poke holes in this - I'm hoping I've messed up the share counts or something.

The big question is not who has market dominance right now, but who will have it in the future. As more and more TH are put to work, the cost of keeping a constant network percentage increases geometrically, not linearly. After a certain threshold, the costs for single miners start to get prohibitive, as only conglomerates who have access to the most cost-effective hardware are able to stay in the race. This means who ever has: (a) the fastest ASICs, (b) the least power-hungry ones and (c) the cheapest ones, has more leverage than anyone else.

Current 110nm ASICs will be the GPUs of the future, no doubts about that. It will happen.

ActiveMining is in a good spot right now, since it's joining the 28nm bandwagon at an early stage, but even if there are delays it's not really that important. It may start the race later, but it has the "fastest" car and the race time is infinite. On an infinite race, whoever has the "fastest" car will pass over anyone else sooner or later, no doubts there (here "fastest" means most performing/cost).

A factor of 50 (0.025BTC/share) would equate to weekly dividends of 0.000125BTC modeled at 0.5%(26%APR). During 25BTC block reward period, this would require only 12.4% mining share with VMC breaking dead even on hardware sales/purchases (NOTE: VMC actually stands to make a sizable profit on sales). This is actually less of a mining share than ASICMINER currently boasts. In other words, ActM doesn't even have to reach their mining share dominance to reap a similar return on investment.

So, as far as I know, AM shares were 0.1 btc at IPO and recently hit over 5.0 btc which represents a 50 fold increase in value.

ActM shares were 0.0005 btc at IPO and would be valued at 0.025 btc if they also increased by a factor of 50.

What happened with AM that allowed for such a massive increase in value?

Is it fair to expect the same, or similar, price increase with ActM, assuming they fullfill their promises?

By the time ActM equal AM in terms of network hashrate, and assuming other competitors at this point have also played their hand, would this mean that the giddy heights of a 50 fold increase from IPO price are resigned to the history books?

And finally, why hasn't anyone photoshopped 'Ken For President'?   

Im not sure either. Maybe just a day trader hoping to flip them short term for a profit.

Why would anyone buy AMC but not ActiveMining on Bitfunder?
I saw someone even pay 0.003 for a AMC share, he could have bought ActiveMining at a much cheaper price.

Another 15k shares bought from the wall on btc-tc, bringing the wall down to 1,840,987

At current prices it is hard to predict, but I think their is profit to be made there

That makes sense. My next question is: will solominers be able to profit off of ASICMINER's hardware? Or will they even be able to compete anymore? I understand it's not really possible to breakeven using ASICMINER's current selling hardware.

Updated original post with shares purchased from BTCT - will try to keep updated

LOL and look who is in there accusing Ken of being a scammer... was it Volcanic that found all his info and that he had run ins with the law?

He apparently is creating a scammer thread

ASICMINER has a target % of the global hashrate, without a true competitor they cannot increase their mining in house.  With another player in the market pushing the hashrate up, solo miners will have to purchase more ASIC's, thus increasing their sales.  So it is win win for them, that is it in a nutshell

Can someone run me through the logic of increased AM sales due to increased competition? Or how competition helps them in general? Sorry if I missed it, sometimes my brain don't work no good.

Sorry.  That was my attempt at trying to be funny.  I should have thrown down a smiley or two.