Ah... well... apparently. We will see 
Of course I'm not at any of the companies and only they would know, but -right now- eASIC aren't involved in KnC as far as anyone is saying (in any of the camps).
In future, who knows.
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 112. (Read 479475 times)
Of course I'm not at any of the companies and only they would know, but -right now- eASIC aren't involved in KnC as far as anyone is saying (in any of the camps).
In future, who knows.
They most definitely are. For... erm... like 8 years I think. They've been doing 45nm stuff for a while also with eASIC.
I meant not in the case of KnC chips
They most definitely are. For... erm... like 8 years I think. They've been doing 45nm stuff for a while also with eASIC.
I meant not in the case of KnC chips
They're a re-seller of eASIC.
Not in this case. At least that's not what we've been told or what KnC are saying.
They're a re-seller of eASIC.
Not in this case. At least that's not what we've been told or what KnC are saying.
You know that KnC is using eASIC as well, right?
Ahem. KnC are ORSoC.
https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-9
You know that KnC is using eASIC as well, right?
Ahem. KnC are ORSoC.
https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-9
But with all the competition from companies with far more experience with Integrated Circuits within the company or work very closely with one. (KnC, HashFast, Cointerra, Labcoin, etc) why do you think ActiveMining is going to be able to keep up with network growth and make a profit?
Good question.
The entire prospect is based around eASIC, who do all of that and extremely well to - probably better than anyone at 28nm. However, that part of it is still covered by NDA (hopefully not for much longer) hence the lack of updates.
You know that KnC is using eASIC as well, right?
And they taped out months earlier as well.
I thought they were going through an eASIC reseller called ORSoc.
Further, what's your point? Even if all else is equal, are you under the impression that one company will own this space?
But with all the competition from companies with far more experience with Integrated Circuits within the company or work very closely with one. (KnC, HashFast, Cointerra, Labcoin, etc) why do you think ActiveMining is going to be able to keep up with network growth and make a profit?
Good question.
The entire prospect is based around eASIC, who do all of that and extremely well to - probably better than anyone at 28nm. However, that part of it is still covered by NDA (hopefully not for much longer) hence the lack of updates.
You know that KnC is using eASIC as well, right?
And they taped out months earlier too.
HashFast is working closely with Uniquify, and labcoin is working with SZICC.
But with all the competition from companies with far more experience with Integrated Circuits within the company or work very closely with one. (KnC, HashFast, Cointerra, Labcoin, etc) why do you think ActiveMining is going to be able to keep up with network growth and make a profit?
Good question.
The entire prospect is based around eASIC, who do all of that and extremely well to - probably better than anyone at 28nm. However, that part of it is still covered by NDA (hopefully not for much longer) hence the lack of updates.
Whats going on with Active these days? Worth investing in?
Perhaps there are other reasons to keep that information confidential, but blaming it on an NDA with a vendor is rather unnecessary, and does nothing but raise more questions among people with knowledge of these matters.
Just to correct something, Ken did not say the above.
And to correct something else, the NDA could cover things related to payment when the conversion was very specifically to make a payment, the amount and details of which had previously been disclosed and caused Ken to get 'his hand slapped'. It could be argued that stating the conversion had been done also implied payment, and that will definitely be covered by the NDA.
Does that make sense?
Furthermore, as you say, there may be other reasons.
It's not straight forward, especially when you've made an NDA mistake previously. It's a delicate balance keeping shareholders happy and making your key business deal. I'm not going to say he's got it entirely right, only that he definitely cannot say certain things even though we all want him to. I'd rather he take a safety first approach than take unnecessary risks. There is still some way to go here as I think we all know.
For the record, I've been dealing with NDAs for nearly 20 years and signed more than I can shake a stick it. They're funny beasts. Conversely, having an NDA with someone does not mean you have an established business relationship. That's why Ken needs to get PR out to shareholders about eASIC to confirm what he's been saying.
I didn't mention NDA, however you managed quite well on four occasions.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts but read again, "We are allowed to confirm..."
And anyway, what's the problem if he asked for clarification that releasing this information was not going to be an issue?
Well, I thought the problem was self evident, and I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rest of it.
Anyway, I guess we can agree to disagree. Bon chance.
I liquidated 99% of my other stocks to go all in to ActiveMining. (The only reason it's not 100%is because I couldn't sell my remaining AsicMining direct shares - In fact if anybody wishes to swap, to show prove my below statements? Let me know).
Not to go into details, however; if I sold now I would be very happy with the Bitcoins received.
This obviously puts me in the pro-ActiveMining category.
The reason I am not selling now is that I have a lot of faith in Ken, his team and our newly appointed Advisory / Shareholder Board Members.
Not to go into details, however; if I sold now I would be very happy with the Bitcoins received.
This obviously puts me in the pro-ActiveMining category.
The reason I am not selling now is that I have a lot of faith in Ken, his team and our newly appointed Advisory / Shareholder Board Members.
Just out of curiosity, why? I never really paid much attention to this forum when I was GPU mining, so I don't really know the history.
But with all the competition from companies with far more experience with Integrated Circuits within the company or work very closely with one. (KnC, HashFast, Cointerra, Labcoin, etc) why do you think ActiveMining is going to be able to keep up with network growth and make a profit?
Those companies can share all kinds of details about their chips because they designed them. Presumably some NDAs are involved but they can talk as much as they want about their own work.
From my perspective you're much better off being able to design your own chips because you can tweak the designs to get better performance, and of course you can save a ton of money by doing part of the design in house.
So, why is it you think ActiveMining is so much more likely to succeed then all the other companies out there? What do they have that the other's don't?
'We are allowed to confirm...'
Come on guys wisen up here. It's clear that Ken has asked for permission to release this detail as a response to the impatient and whiney shareholders.
Come on guys wisen up here. It's clear that Ken has asked for permission to release this detail as a response to the impatient and whiney shareholders.
Since most people have never signed an NDA, this seems to be a convenient way to avoid answering questions.
NDA's only cover information, given in confidence, by a disclosing party to a receiving party. In other words, Ken is not able to share confidential information disclosed to him by eAsic, and vice-versa. Unless eAsic handled the bitcoin conversion itself, and disclosed the details of said conversion to Ken in confidence, it's simply ridiculous to assert that it is covered by the eAsic NDA.
Perhaps there are other reasons to keep that information confidential, but blaming it on an NDA with a vendor is rather unnecessary, and does nothing but raise more questions among people with knowledge of these matters.
I didn't mention NDA, however you managed quite well on four occasions.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts but read again, "We are allowed to confirm..."
And anyway, what's the problem if he asked for clarification that releasing this information was not going to be an issue?
'We are allowed to confirm...'
Come on guys wisen up here. It's clear that Ken has asked for permission to release this detail as a response to the impatient and whiney shareholders.
Come on guys wisen up here. It's clear that Ken has asked for permission to release this detail as a response to the impatient and whiney shareholders.
Since most people have never signed an NDA, this seems to be a convenient way to avoid answering questions.
NDA's only cover information, given in confidence, by a disclosing party to a receiving party. In other words, Ken is not able to share confidential information disclosed to him by eAsic, and vice-versa. Unless eAsic handled the bitcoin conversion itself, and disclosed the details of said conversion to Ken in confidence, it's simply ridiculous to assert that it is covered by the eAsic NDA.
Perhaps there are other reasons to keep that information confidential, but blaming it on an NDA with a vendor is rather unnecessary, and does nothing but raise more questions among people with knowledge of these matters.
...
The problem with that is you are addressing a lot of truly amateur investors and some really inexperienced and naive people.
...
The problem with that is you are addressing a lot of truly amateur investors and some really inexperienced and naive people.
...
So heartfelt. So insulting. So true.
'We are allowed to confirm...'
Come on guys wisen up here. It's clear that Ken has asked for permission to release this detail as a response to the impatient and whiney shareholders.
Come on guys wisen up here. It's clear that Ken has asked for permission to release this detail as a response to the impatient and whiney shareholders.
The problem with that is you are addressing a lot of truly amateur investors and some really inexperienced and naive people.
PR is taking a lead today by making the obvious even more obvious (eg that an Advisory Board is an Advisory Board) but this sort of hand holding needs to occur more often I'm afraid. I think the experience at the top could take the edge off things here by recognizing that the majority of vocal ACtM shareholders don't know the first thing about business and need things simply explained to them as and when questions occur - incredibly uninformed though some of these questions may be.
This advisory board has proven to be quite useless, in fact the only updates from the board are messages saying how useless the board is and how they have no power.
The reason you're seeing the product, (significant) pricing and any web changes is down to Ken listening to some firm feedback from us. I think you have to give Ken credit for listening and acting over some pretty big points.
Whilst we don't have control of the detail and whilst we can't have our way in everything, we've had a great deal of input. However, there are some people contacting us privately who think we actually are an integral part of ActM and it was important to put that straight.
The key word is Advisory.
This advisory board has proven to be quite useless, in fact the only updates from the board are messages saying how useless the board is and how they have no power.
Jump to: