[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 110.

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: BlockChains on August 28, 2013, 11:03:22 PM

I agree a refund request would be a better option. Mainly because at this point the chip buy is a sunk cost and there are only 2 real outcomes:

1. We could wait some undetermined amount of time and maybe get chips that will never ROI or

2. Wait some undetermined amount of time and maybe get the full btc investment back.

It seems that since both options are unlikely, at least if one were to pan out the refund would see the best return.

Also, 9 Batch 3 refunds and counting have been issued since the community and Yifu had their scuffle today. So there's some hope for a possible refund, maybe.

This is solid reasoning. 100%

BlockChains

member

Activity: 110

Merit: 10

I agree a refund request would be a better option. Mainly because at this point the chip buy is a sunk cost and there are only 2 real outcomes:

1. We could wait some undetermined amount of time and maybe get chips that will never ROI or

2. Wait some undetermined amount of time and maybe get the full btc investment back.

It seems that since both options are unlikely, at least if one were to pan out the refund would see the best return.

Also, 9 Batch 3 refunds and counting have been issued since the community and Yifu had their scuffle today. So there's some hope for a possible refund, maybe.

afrotec

full member

Activity: 127

Merit: 100

Coinnoisseur

+1 for dumping the chips. finally a chance to reclaim what we once thought was lost - we should initiate the refund ASAP and be sure we're at the top of a long list

Ytterbium

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: kleeck on August 28, 2013, 07:12:37 PM

Quote from: Ytterbium on August 28, 2013, 06:39:50 PM

Quote from: knybe on August 28, 2013, 06:25:43 PM

Yeah but...

ActiveMining doesn't have existing FPGA designs that need converting to ASIC. From what I understand, ACTM will be ASICs from the get go... maybe I'm not getting it?

There are open-source FPGA implementations they could have used.

It's a pretty simple business model: You take an open-source FPGA hasher implementation, hand it over to eASIC, and they generate wiring patterns for their nextreme (or whatever) configurable ASIC cores, and send those files off to the fab for production. Pretty easy even at 28nm, but a lot more inefficient then a standard-cell or custom design.

Even if they're not using the open-source FPGA code, writing an SHA256 hasher in verilog (or whatever) probably isn't a lot of work.

Yes. I think you are catching on. This method of production takes between 6 and 8 weeks from RTL (which Ken had already custome developed) to tape-out. Keep in mind that the NRE was competed "quite some time ago" and the boards are already in development according to Ken. He has already stated that he expects to be shipping the FastHash by the end of October. I think there is a good chance that ActM will hit that mark and be among the first 28nm to market. And that is really just the start of the benefit of the eAsic partnership...

http://www.easic.com/high-speed-transceivers-low-cost-power-fpga-nre-asic-45nm-easic-nextreme-2/easic-nextreme-2-overview/

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3027753

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2790012

Well, all eAsic has said is that there were 'discussions', that's a lot less then Uniquify was able to do with HashFast or ORSoC was able to do for KnC.

Also, the KnC chips were due in September, so even if ActiveMining stays on target they won't be the first 28nm chip.

I'm fairly skeptical of HashFast's ability to deliver in October but supposedly they are getting a "bullet run" for chips a month after they tape out. That's something that would be covered by NDA.

However, you understand that if they are using this process their chips will be much larger per amount of hash then their competitors, right? That means their chips will be much more expensive per Gh/s to manufacture. They'll still get the energy efficiency benefits, though.

AstroBoy

newbie

Activity: 50

Merit: 0

For those that missed it, page 233 has an update from Ken and a post about the advisory board on it.

Cheers.

Ytterbium

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: BitSyncom on August 28, 2013, 05:42:35 PM

Quote from: Sophokles on August 28, 2013, 05:20:15 PM

Quote from: BitSyncom on August 28, 2013, 05:15:05 PM

I am tired of this toxic community malformed by greed.

Man, you've got quite some nerve for posting this. A full refund will not solve the issue. Please explain the 1+ million chips delivery that showed up in pictures from June? So, where did they end up?

batch 3? the amount was never 1+ million chips. if one 1+ million chips did show up in june, none of this would be happening and difficulty would NOT be this low, do some math.

also people seem to not make the connect to sudden raise of difficulty to us shipping batch 3 and bitfury's http://ghash.io pool coming online...

brb making refund form, I'm done with this.

Here's ActM's chance to get those coins back and try again!

Yeah, absolutely. They have two orders so that's over 1560btc, not counting the Klondikes. $184,080 USD at bitstamp prices.

If they don't apply for a refund they are completely out of their minds.

Sou

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

(Bitcoin related text here)

+1 for getting rid of the avalon chips.

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Amongst advisory board members?

Otherwise, I'm a +1 for the motion to attempt refund/selling.

zefyr0s

sr. member

Activity: 245

Merit: 250

Should this be put to vote?

finlof

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: finlof on August 21, 2013, 11:17:58 AM

one point (although it might be a perceived one) that icebreaker makes is that it is probably worth it for ActiveMining to scrap the avalon clone assembly and take those chips/materials/clones and sell them sooner than later. ActiveMining might actually be able to sell them for a profit (or hopefully break even at least). and then not have the infrastructure costs (racks, power, etc) to have to cover for those machines, nor have to deal with the rising difficulty that reduces any payout these will give. even if that means that the dividends wont go up, if you are indeed in this long-term then the short-term dividend increase is LITERALLY pennies, and when compared to either reinvesting that capital elsewhere or returning it to shareholders seems to be unwise. it would seem that would be a strategy/idea to at least discuss and/or put up to shareholder vote. if we all believe in the long-term viability of ActiveMining then it will come from it's own chips, not some old technology that prob wont have an ROI.

i again recommend that we rid ourselves of these avalon chips, whether it be pursued via refund request, fire-sale, or legal action.

Ozymandias

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: navitatl on August 28, 2013, 08:03:26 PM

Quote from: Ozymandias on August 28, 2013, 07:31:00 PM

I would absolutely get a refund for as many chips as possible. I'm not sure what should be done with the ~1500btc we'd get back though. It could be given back to the 10mil shares at 0.00015 per share, kept to cover any potential expenses, some other option, or any combination of the three. Thoughts?

Put it in a fund for continual production of in-house chips. That's where the real strength lies.

BTC1560 is roughly $200,000 right now. 28nm Wafers probably cost around $10,000 + eASIC copy markup so maybe $15-20k/each.

Would be nice to order an additional 10-15 Wafers (Each wafer will have around 2,000 or so chips on it, we won't really know until we have the chip size)

That would be 15 * 2000 = 30,000 Chips - 240TH worth of chips. Ya I'd say cash it in and buy wafers Wink

Yeah, that seems to be the best course of action

Quote from: N_S on August 28, 2013, 08:24:43 PM

Quote from: Ozymandias on August 28, 2013, 08:19:49 PM

Wonderful, a lawsuit, just what a fledging company needs. Moral justifications of "should" they be sued aside, would it make sense from a business perspective to engage in a lawsuit and potentially attract unwanted legal attention towards both the company, the exchange it's hosted on, and the individual shareholders (at least the US ones which I'm assuming is a non-trivial number)?

Well, since it'd apparently be a class-action lawsuit, I'm wondering how much direct attention it would need from the company. Unless of course they're spearheading it. I'm with you on potentially unwanted attention, though.

FWIW, if this becomes a serious consideration, I'm sure the reluctance to enter into a lawsuit will be brought up in advisor meetings.

I simply dislike lawsuits as they are generally overly complicated, time and resource intensive gambles that, in this case, wont achieve anything but stroking the plaintifs' egos and, as I mentioned earlier, could bring unwanted attention. My vote would be for getting refunds and using those refunds to get more wafers from eASIC as Bargraphics said above

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: Ozymandias on August 28, 2013, 08:19:49 PM

Wonderful, a lawsuit, just what a fledging company needs. Moral justifications of "should" they be sued aside, would it make sense from a business perspective to engage in a lawsuit and potentially attract unwanted legal attention towards both the company, the exchange it's hosted on, and the individual shareholders (at least the US ones which I'm assuming is a non-trivial number)?

Well, since it'd apparently be a class-action lawsuit, I'm wondering how much direct attention it would need from the company. Unless of course they're spearheading it. I'm with you on potentially unwanted attention, though.

FWIW, if this becomes a serious consideration, I'm sure the reluctance to enter into a lawsuit will be brought up in advisor meetings.

Ozymandias

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Looks like Ken might be going after Yifu, this was posted in the Steamboat Thread.

Quote from: kslaughter on August 28, 2013, 07:37:48 PM

I think a class action law suite would be the way to go.

Anyone here want to join, I have already discussed this with a lawyer.

Wonderful, a lawsuit, just what a fledging company needs. Moral justifications of "should" they be sued aside, would it make sense from a business perspective to engage in a lawsuit and potentially attract unwanted legal attention towards both the company, the exchange it's hosted on, and the individual shareholders (at least the US ones which I'm assuming is a non-trivial number)?

navitatl

member

Activity: 119

Merit: 10

Quote from: Ozymandias on August 28, 2013, 07:31:00 PM

I would absolutely get a refund for as many chips as possible. I'm not sure what should be done with the ~1500btc we'd get back though. It could be given back to the 10mil shares at 0.00015 per share, kept to cover any potential expenses, some other option, or any combination of the three. Thoughts?

Put it in a fund for continual production of in-house chips. That's where the real strength lies.

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Looks like Ken might be going after Yifu, this was posted in the Steamboat Thread.

Quote from: kslaughter on August 28, 2013, 07:37:48 PM

I think a class action law suite would be the way to go.

Anyone here want to join, I have already discussed this with a lawyer.

I personally want to see Avalon and BFL driven into the ground for a couple reasons. First, I think they should be punished for their entire disregard for customer service. I'd also like to see them go down so some of these new operations (ActM, Labcoin, CoinTerra, etc.) can get a better grip of the maket.

This really should be like an almost untapped market at this point. Meaning aside from ASICMINER, there are no delivering mining hardware outfits that are worth a damn. I personally think you're nuts to order anything from Avalon/BFL that hasn't been proven to ship within 48hrs.

There's a lot of room in this space, or at least the fucking well ought to be.

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: Ozymandias on August 28, 2013, 07:52:03 PM

Yeah, Yifu said he was going to refund unshipped chips (though he also said that he thought Batch 3s were already refunded which I can confirm, at least mine, hasn't been). The dividends earned from mining with those chips would be smaller than just straight up refunding the avalon chips straight into the dividends

Yeah, if that's the case, then my vote goes toward refund.

Ozymandias

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 250

Quote from: N_S on August 28, 2013, 07:48:04 PM

Quote from: Ozymandias on August 28, 2013, 07:44:46 PM

I don't understand, if they will mine less than the amount we would get refunded, why run them at all?

Ah, if a refund is possible, I'd say that'd probably be the best course to go. Although, knowing Yifu, I'm not sure we'd see that refund anytime in 2013.

I'm wondering though...the added hashing power would be good for dividends, no? But I suppose the argument at that point is one of: could the money used to buy the chips be better spent elsewhere?

Yeah, Yifu said he was going to refund unshipped chips (though he also said that he thought Batch 3s were already refunded which I can confirm, at least mine, hasn't been). The dividends earned from mining with those chips would be smaller than just straight up refunding the avalon chips straight into the dividends

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: Ozymandias on August 28, 2013, 07:44:46 PM

I don't understand, if they will mine less than the amount we would get refunded, why run them at all?

Ah, if a refund is possible, I'd say that'd probably be the best course to go. Although, knowing Yifu, I'm not sure we'd see that refund anytime in 2013.

I'm wondering though...the added hashing power would be good for dividends, no? But I suppose the argument at that point is one of: could the money used to buy the chips be better spent elsewhere?

Ozymandias

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 250

I don't understand, if they will mine less than the amount we would get refunded, why run them at all?

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on August 28, 2013, 07:33:01 PM

Here's the thing people don't realize: It doesn't matter if the Avalon chips don't break even with ROI. They have already been paid for. Grin

Just mine the fuck out of them and get what you can..

This is true. The purchase amount has already been deducted, any mining that's able to be done will only make that deducted amount smaller.

Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 110. (Read 479317 times)